ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009121
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Health Service 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-00011943-001 | 16/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 herein dispute concerns the rate for the job as applied to the complainant’s current role. The respondent accepts that the normal applicable grade is that of Grade VII but that the circumstances justify a deviation from the norm. The parties made oral and written submission to the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he is employed as a Grade VII WRDTF Co-ordinator since July 2016 on the clear understanding that he would be remunerated at that grade at the first opportunity. His substantive grade is Grade VI, however it is recognised at all levels that the work which he performs is proper to Grade VII. All his colleagues who perform this role nationally are appropriately graded and remunerated. The respondent has the wherewithal to deal with the issue but has refused to do so to date. The respondent acknowledges that the complainant has carried out all aspects of the role. The complainant is entitled to the rate for the job. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the complainant took up the Co-ordinator role on a part time basis from 1st of March 2016 and maintained his substantive role as Communications Officer simultaneously. He had been facilitated by way of internal geographic relocation in 2015. The previous post holder had transferred to another service and the post was lost due to lack of funding. The complainant agreed to accept the post on his current grade and remuneration. He submitted a request to have the post upgraded in May 2016. The request was denied and a further request for reconsideration was made in January 2017 but also denied. The respondent submits that the appropriate remedy in this case is that the position be evaluated under the Job Evaluation Scheme. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I hereby recommend that the complainant be temporarily and formally appointed to his current role/post and paid at Grade VII rate with an effective date of January 2017 pending the permanent filling of the role/post at Grade VII level through an open and transparent competition as provided in the respondent’s relevant Code. |
Dated: 9th August 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes