ADJUDICATION RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00013466

Parties: 

DISPUTE

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  31/05/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 andfollowing 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 since February 2009 with the named Respondent. She referred a Dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 26th February 2018 in relation to her Grading. She is seeking an upgrading.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT’S PIOSITION.

In November 2014 and with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission agreement was reached between the Parties on a process of Job Evaluation in a number of areas within the Respondent’s employment. In line with this agreement the Complainant’s role was graded at Grade 3 and this was implemented effective from July 2016. The Complainant has consistently disputed the grading based on her role and responsibilities. Representations have been made by the Complainant and her Trade Union SIPTU but there was no agreement between the Parties and the dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission.

SIPTU argued that based on her responsibilities the appropriate grade should be a Grade 4. There is a differential of €8600.00 per annum. The Complainant is seeking a recommendation that she be placed at Grade 4 and that her annual salary be adjusted accordingly.

SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S POSITION.

The Respondent’s (named) Services is an independent, not for profit mental health care provider. The Complainant has been employed since 7th March 2009. Her current salary is €36,457 per annum on her basic grade 3,  13 point scale and her potential salary is therefore £40,102.70. On her next increment she is due to go to €37,900.

In 2014 SIPTU referred a collective pay claim to the Labour Relations Commission on behalf of a number of administrative staff and agreement was reached through the LRC with the provision for a job evaluation scheme.

SIPTU raised the issue of the Complainant and they provided clarity on 7th April 2017 that the Complainant’s claim was for upgrading to Grade 4. There were meetings and the outcome was the Respondent rejected the claim. In September 20217 the Complainant raised a Grievance under the Procedures of the Company in relation to a core part of her role being removed from her. The Complainant was reassured that the change was grounded in a change to the legislation and that the Medical Director was now performing the function in question which had previously been performed by the Credit Controller not the Complainant.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.

On the basis of the evidence, written submissions and discussion at the Hearing I find as follows –

There is an agreed Labour Relations Commission agreement of 7th November 2014 which provided for the engagement of a named person to conduct a job evaluation of roles. The evidence was that the Complainant’s role was evaluated in line with this agreement and the Complainant was graded at Grade 3 in accordance with this agreement. At this time the Complainant was in receipt of an annual salary of €30,000. On her regrading she was paid an annual salary of €32,277.00. She is currently paid €36,547.00 per annum.

RECOMMENDATION.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.  On the basis of the evidence and my findings above I find that the Complainant has been graded at Grade 3, following a Job Evaluation in line with the Labour Relations Commission proposals of November 2014. I do not find in favour of the Complainant in relation to her dispute

Dated:   August 28th 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: