ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004588
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Staff Officer | A Health Services Provider |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00006411-001 | 11/08/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Acts, 1984 - 2012, and/or Part VII of the Pensions Acts 1990 - 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Claimant is seeking to have her workload properly assessed under the Regularisation circular. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Claimant is employed as a staff officer since 2002. During the moratorium, there were two post not filled, a grade 6 &n 7. These duties were distributed amongst the existing staff. The Claimant was assigned a substantial part of these responsibilities which she has carried out since October 2009 In October 2013, HSE HR Circular 017/2013 was issued. This allowed staff to have their post regularised if they were carrying out higher level duties. There was also an appeals circular issued in July 2015. These circulars were not brought to the attention of the Claimant. When she became aware she made representation through her union as the process was coming to an end. The Adjudicator decided that her post should be treated as a priority through the Job Evaluation process. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that they had no problem dealing with this case through the Job Evaluation process and that it should be dealt with as soon as possible. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
There was clear agreement at the Hearing that the job evaluation in this case should proceed as soon as possible. However , the Claimant has requested a decision on the matter. Therefore for the record, I find the there is agreement between the parties that the matter should dealt with through the Job Evaluation process as soon as possible. |
Dated: 12 June 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Key Words: |