Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Staff Officer

A Local Authority

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-00011795-001

08/06/2017

The complainant is employed by the respondent since 2000 as a Staff officer. He seeks a re-grading of his position to the Local Authority Grade 5 and to be re-assigned to a different department within the council.

The complainant had previously brought a successful complaint to adjudication regarding being underpaid for the level of responsibility of the work he was doing. This resulted in a   substantial award in a previous adjudication.

He says that he was moved from his duties in the Internal Audit department before his claim could be processed and lost various benefits to which he had been entitled.

He has applied for promotion on a number of occasions and while he has recently been promoted he had failed on all previous occasions.

He seeks re-grading to Grade 5 and re-assignment to the Internal Audit department.

The respondent says the claim is a re-run of a previous claim in which the complainant got an award of €17,000 for acting up at a higher level. While this was an award under the   Industrial Relations Act the respondent was agreeable to implement it,   despite having an option not to.

It also states that any transfers of the complainant were part of the normal pattern of staff mobility undertaken by the Council.

If the complainant wishes to pursue either re-grading or promotional opportunities there are well established structures through which he might do so.

In relation to his application to be transferred back to the internal Audit Section and on a higher grade similar comments apply; he must apply for a vacancy when it arises. He can   make a transfer request and/or apply for a higher post when the opportunity arises.

I find that this is a fresh complaint which was not addressed by the previous adjudication.

On this occasion the complainant has come to the Workplace Relations Commission seeking to be promoted and transferred to a different department.

To say the least of it, this indicates  a somewhat expansive view of the functions of the adjudication service of the WRC, and all the more so given that it would have presumably followed advice from the country’s largest trade union, although it is possible that if the advice was along these lines it was ignored.

There will be circumstances in   which an adjudicator has a role under the Industrial Relations Act in relation to righting a wrong arising from an application for promotion or re-grading, or recommending a solution to the parties, and as the Labour Court notes in the extract below, in respect to the fairness of the procedures.

The previous Rights Commissioner service developed a much respected reputation in exercising such jurisdiction and in applying, often innovative solutions to such disputes which had failed to be resolved at local level.

A great strength in such   processes was the voluntary participation of both parties in the exercise as this endowed the adjudicator with the necessary authority to act. It created   circumstances in which a recommendation had a good chance of being acceptable   to the parties.

However, it is frankly hard to   conceive of what basis the complainant considered it likely that an Adjudicator   would take unto themselves the authority to recommend (and it would, under   this legislation only be a recommendation) to an employer that a person be   appointed to a promotional positon for which he had not actually applied, and   for which no vacancy exists.

Further the Adjudicator would   have no basis for assessing his suitability, even if he should in a moment of weakness consider doing so.

It is equally hard to figure   how the basis on which the complainant considered that an Adjudicator might direct a large employer to re-assign one of its employees to a particular   department simply because the employee wishes it and has come to the WRC seeking it.

It is difficult to fathom the degree of detachment from reality that has fuelled such expectation.

In a previous case ADJ 6049, (approved on appeal to the Labour Court) the Adjudication Officer held;

"In large   organisations with hierarchical grading structures, re-grading normally takes   place following some, system-based assessment process rather than collective   bargaining or negotiation. This is done in order to preserve equity in in the   system and to ensure that the rewards and the levels of responsibility are matched.

………….

Further, I can see no grounds for an adjudicator substituting himself for the grading process which remains   available to the complainant subject to compliance with its requirements’

The Labour Court added;

‘It is not the role of the court to   substitute its view for the view of the committee charged with making   decisions around promotions/upgrades. The role of the Court is to establish   if fair procedure has been followed. The Union acknowledged that the agreed   procedure for seeking an upgrade/promotion had been followed and in those   circumstances the recommendation of the Adjudicator is affirmed and the   appeal is disallowed.’

The WRC has no authority to act   in a case such as this; a fact that should have been obvious to the   complainant and the Commission is not some sort of clearing house for complaints   of this nature which properly should be addressed at the level of the workplace. The fact that it may not be resolved there does not mean that the WRC is an   automatic, next ‘port of call’ unless it clearly falls within a category of complaint which can be addressed along the lines indicated above.

The complainant has the option to apply for any vacancy he wishes in the future.

This complaint is misconceived, totally without merit and it fails.

For the reasons set out above complaint CA-00011795-001 is dismissed.

Promotion, grading, jurisdiction/role of Adjudicator