ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003399

Complaints for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26th October 2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 6^th May 2016, three complainants lodged disputes to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The disputes were scheduled for adjudication on the 26^th October 2016. The complainants are dispatchers and the respondent is a public service provider.

In accordance with the Industrial Relations Act following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Complainants’ Submission and Presentation:

The complainants are employed by the respondent as dispatchers. They provide an essential public service. The first two complainants commenced employment on the 26^th August 2013 and the third on the 8^th July 2013. They were all initially employed as call takers in the same service. The first two complainants were promoted to the dispatcher role on the 16^th March 2015 and the third complainant promoted on the 1^st April 2015. Their disputes relate to the terms and conditions attached to their roles following their promotion.

The second and third complainants attended the adjudication. The first complainant has found alternative employment and could not attend the adjudication. The complainants outlined that the respondent had split the call taker and dispatcher roles, making the former junior to the latter. They said that they had acted up to the dispatcher role very early after their appointment and they had not received recognition for this. They were subsequently appointed to the dispatcher role, and the third complainant had since been promoted to a supervisor role.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent outlines that it implemented the relevant Circular for new entrants obtaining promotion within the respondent. It states that the roles at issue in this dispute are equivalent to named roles elsewhere in the respondent. The respondent submitted that the position of the complainants differed to a comparator as this comparator had not been a new entrant.

Findings and reasoning:

The complainants commenced working for the respondent in mid-2013 in one role in the service. At the adjudication, they outlined that they had been allocated acting up roles in the department and worked in these roles until their promotion in April 2015. It is obvious that this case discloses significant and wide-ranging issues regarding the treatment of new entrants in the public service recruited over recent years. There is also the important issue of the recognition of the work done by the complainants as call dispatchers for the period before their promotion. I propose that the complainants be awarded incremental credit for a period of 12 months for their work as dispatcher prior to their promotion to this role.

Recommendation:

Pursuant to the complaints made under the Industrial Relations Acts, I recommend that each complainant be awarded incremental credit in the dispatcher grade for the period of 12 months up to April 2015.

Dated:   19^th January 2017