Act

Dispute Reference   No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13    of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00007846-001

27/10/2016

The complainant has been working for the   respondent in the HR Department since 2006 and has been in her current role   since 2009. She claims that her   current grade is incorrect and that her role should be regraded or subject to   a job-grading evaluation process.

The complainant contends that she is conducting work   appropriate to the higher grade of Administrative Officer (AO). In the absence of this being granted, it was   requested that her role be evaluated through a job-grading evaluation   process. It was outlined that performance   reviews carried out by the then HR Director had indicated that he had no   doubt around her capability to undertake a role at AO level. It was claimed that the complainant has   been precluded from raising a ‘grievance’ as it is characterised by the respondent   as an “industrial relations” claim, as per the respondent’s letter to SIPTU   dated 15^th May 2014.

The respondent contends that the complainant applied for   and obtained a role as a Grade 5 Admin post in 2011 on a 3 year contract   which was later confirmed as being full-time and permanent. They advised that they are precluded from   engaging in cost-increasing claims and are not at liberty to accede to her request as per Department of Education and Skills guidelines.  

I am somewhat surprised that the   complainant has been precluded from raising a grievance prior to both parties   appearance at this hearing. It is also   rather alarming that a letter of 15^th May 2014 from the HR Manager   to SIPTU details that queries regarding grading “are not grievances in the   normal sense” and that “it is not   appropriate to seek to have a line manager hear a particular issue   (queries regarding grading) and reach a   conclusion”. This letter also states   further on that the respondent “is more   than willing to hear the grievances which relate to matters which can be   adjudicated internally” but in other matters “it is not appropriate to raise them under the grievance procedure”. This approach seems at odds with S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and   Disciplinary Procedures:

“While arrangements for handling …   grievance issues vary considerably from employment to employment depending on   a wide variety of factors including the terms of contracts of employment,   locally agreed procedures, industry agreements and whether trade unions are   recognised for bargaining purposes, the principles and procedures of this   Code of Practice should apply unless alternative agreed procedures exist in   the workplace which conform to its general provisions for dealing with   grievance ….issues”

Disputes under this   Act should be raised and exhausted at local level through the respondent’s   grievance procedure.  I find in this case that this did not occur. As outlined to both parties at the Hearing,   The Workplace Relations Commission should not be the first port of call when   a person has a grievance under the Industrial Relations Act.

 I note in the   Labour Court case INT1014 it   stated” The Court is not prepared to insert itself into the procedural   process in a situation where the dispute resolution procedures have been   bypassed.”

However, the question arises as to where   does an employee of the respondent go where they have a grievance, such as   this instant case and where the respondent say that they are “not grievances in the normal sense”? There were discussions at the hearing   regarding the Gender Equality Taskforce   Recommendation around a promotion scheme for support staff which the respondent   advised they are currently considering the implementation of same. While I note that this report was dated in   June 2016 and would query the delay in considering the implementation or   otherwise of same, I am also cognisant that there has been no specific claims   made regarding gender inequality.

Therefore,   taking into consideration the unique circumstances of this claim, I recommend   that:

Firstly, the respondent should agree a   dispute resolution procedure that allows for the handling of all   grievances at local level in the first instance. This will ensure their compliance with SI No 146 of S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and   Disciplinary Procedures and in particular Section 2.2.

I recommend   that such a dispute resolution procedure be implemented within 42 days of   this recommendation.

Secondly, with   regards to the complainant’s specific dispute, and based on its unique   circumstances, I would recommend that within 42 days of this recommendation, the   complainant’s role be subject to job-grading evaluation by a suitably   qualified person(s) to determine the merits or otherwise of her claim.

Taking   into consideration the unique circumstances of this claim, I recommend that:

in   the first instance, the respondent should look to ensure their compliance with SI No 146 of S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary   Procedures and in   particular Section 2.2. “While arrangements for handling …   grievance issues vary considerably from employment to employment depending on   a wide variety of factors including the terms of contracts of employment,   locally agreed procedures, industry agreements and whether trade unions are   recognised for bargaining purposes, the principles and procedures of this   Code of Practice should apply unless alternative agreed procedures exist in   the workplace which conform to its general provisions for dealing with   grievance ….issues” which based on this instant   case, should include a process for dealing with grievances employees may have   regarding their grades which may   include a need for job-grading evaluation by a suitably qualified person(s)..

With regards to the complainant’s specific dispute,   and based on the unique circumstances, I would recommend that the   complainant’s role be subject to job grading analysis by a suitably qualified   person(s) to determine the merits or otherwise of her claim.

Industrial   relations act, dispute resolution procedure, job evaluation