Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Administrative Supervisor

Hospital

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-00010817-001

13/04/2017

The Complainant is employed as a Supervisor Clinical Coding since 2009. She has claimed that in 2016 the employees that she supervised were upgraded to her grade with no adjustment to her status. She is seeking recognition of her continuing role as supervisor to allow her to continue in her role with dignity and respect. upgrade

The Complainant is a Coding Supervisor to a team of seven. She work a 36 hour week and has 28 days holidays per annum. In mid 2016 a restructure of the Coding Department took place which resulted in the staff being regraded to Grade 5, the same grade as the Complainant Supervisor. The restructure also provided for a 37 hour week and 30 days holidays per annum. The Complainant is a Grade 5 and would have been logical that if the staff that she supervises were regraded that she would also. However she was told that she would remain at Grade 5. She queried this and raised and exhausted the procedure. She was told that she would continue to be viewed as supervisor and that her role would not change. She believes that there should be some differential between her role and the staff that she supervises. The outcome to her grievance was not acceptable while at the same time she was expected to continue in her supervisory role. Her representative put forward a proposal to resolve this matter by a small differential payment. This would be achieved by moving her to the next point of the incremental scale together with an additional one or two days holidays, having been brought into line with holiday entitlements for the other staff. The Respondent offered an additional two days leave on a once off basis. This was rejected. She understands the difficulty surrounding an upgrade but it is not sustainable to expect her to remain in her role without recognition. She has requested that consideration is given to the proposals put forward.

In 2016 a restructure of the Coding Department took place. Staff with more than two years coding experience had their jobs upgraded to Grade 5. The Complainant is seeking to have her role upgraded. There is a Coding Manager in the Department at Grade 6. Her grievance was investigated and it was found that there was not sufficient difference between her role and that of the other senior clinical coders to justify a higher rate of pay. Those that were upgraded are highly experienced coders. There still remain a number of Grade 4 coders in the department. Following the investigation into her grievance it was found that her complaint was not about money but her status and role. It was found that there was no justification to upgrade as her role had not changed. It was decided to affirm to the department that she was still the Supervisor and that there was no change to her role or offer her a move to another department. A meeting took place with her and her union representative. They proposed that she be appointed to the top point of the scale and that she receive ad additional two days holidays and some form of allowance. The Respondent was not in a position to move her on the scale as the employer’s rules requires three years’ service to move to the next long service increment. The Respondent was prepared to offer additional two days holidays on a once off basis. They were not allowed to given any allowances.

It is the Respondents position that the Complainant spends 95 % of her time working as a Clinical Coder. She performs additional duties of recording annual leave, absenteeism and obtaining codes. These duties would not justify any extra payment or grade. There is a manager in place who manages the staff on a daily basis. No additional payments can be made as the Respondent must adhere to the National rules on pay. Giving the Complainant more pay for performing the same role will lead corresponding claims from other categories of workers comparing themselves with upgraded Coders. This claim is rejected.

I find that the facts of the case are not in dispute.

I find that this dispute has arisen following on from a restructuring of the Coding Department.

I find that when the restructure / regrading took place the Employer should have given greater thought to the position of the Complainant.

I find that she was a Grade 5 employee and had some supervisory duties of Grade 4 employees.

The restructure moved a number of Grade 4 employees to Grade 5.

I find that the Employer should have had discussions with her to clarify her role going forward and the supervisory duties that she performed to date.

I note that the Employer subsequently offered that she retain her limited supervisory duties and that she retain the title supervisor, but would be paid as per a Grade 5.

I also note that there is a Grade 6 manager in situ.

I note that the employee has continued to work in her role while her grievance is being pursued.

I recommend the following in full and final settlement of this dispute.

1) Rate of Pay

The Complainant should have her rate upwardly adjusted to the top point of the scale with effect from 1^st January 2017, with the appropriate retrospection.

2) Holidays

I recommend that there should be no change to the annual holiday entitlement.

Should the Employee wish to receive 30 days holidays per annum entitlement she should work 37 hours per week.

I recommend that she receive 2 days leave on a once-off basis to be taken by arrangement with her manager.

I recommend that these settlement terms are not to be used or relied upon in any other forum and that they are unique to this employee.

Re-grading implications