ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008401

Parties:

DISPUTE

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/09/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 and following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

BACKGROUND.

The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since May 1980. The Complainant had been appointed as Interim Area HR Manager in November 2015 and she is paid €2354.11 gross per month and she works 36 hours a week. The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 19^th May 2017 in relation to payment in respect of her appointment to this post in 2015. The issue was not resolved through the internal grievance process and was therefore referred to the WRC.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

The position of Area HR Manager at Grade V111 in a specified location became vacant in December 2014. This post was not filled until 2^nd November 2015 when the Area Manager, named, determined that the post needed to be filled and the Complainant at his request agreed to take on the role pending the outcome of an ongoing restructuring review. This restructuring was completed in December 2016 following which the Complainant reverted to her substantive post on 1^st December 2016. The Complainant sought payment for the 13 months in which she had occupied the post but despite her efforts supported by her Trade Union, IMPACT, she has not been paid the “acting up” payment for this period.

The Area Manager communicated to his Management Team by email dated 2^nd November 2015 that the Complainant had agreed to take on this higher grade duties and was therefore part of the management team. The difference in her salary is estimated by IMPACT at €3,900.00

Summary of Respondent’s Position.

The Respondent confirmed in their submission and at the Hearing that the Complainant had been appointed Interim Area HR Manager in November 2015 which was vacant from December 2014. The Complainant had agreed to take on the role pending the appointment of an Area HR Manger. In April 2016 the Complainant sought payment for the role and requested she be placed on a specified purpose contract for the duration of her appointment. In June 2016 the Area Manager sought advice from the Employee Relations Manager regarding the options available. The Respondent replied referencing the governing Circular and the clarifying memo of August 2014. The Area Manager then sought the approval of the Chief Officer to provide the Complainant with a specified purpose contract. The response was that there was no funding available to support this post.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant had been requested to take on the role and had agreed but that approval for the post was not sanctioned for payment, due to the restrictions in place and the Circulars that applied.

On the basis of the evidence I find as follows –

Both Parties have confirmed the details in relation to this dispute – the Complainant was requested to take on the role and function of Interim Area HR Manager by the Area Manager – she agreed to this – the Area Manager had not sought prior approval from his Manager to fill the post on an interim basis pending the outcome of the restructuring review – the Complainant sought payment after being in the position for a period in excess of 3 month.

On the basis of the evidence it is clear that the Area Manager proceeded to fill a post on an interim basis without prior approval. It is also clear that the Complainant was not informed of this by the Area Manager. I am aware of Circulars that apply to the appointment either in a permanent capacity or on an Interim Basis therefore my Recommendation cannot be read in any context of amending, changing or ignoring these central provisions. However an employee cannot be placed at a disadvantage by the action of their Manager and accordingly I recommend recognition of the Complainant’s contribution to the Respondent at the request of her Manager to fill a post on an interim basis.

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute

Dated:   16.11.2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: