Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Production Services Facilitator

A Pharma Company

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-00015093-001

18/10/2017

The case conjoined with ADJ 11330 , revolves around an issue of grading for the claimant and emphasises the instability which has followed a combined assignment to aspects of a different job. Both parties engaged in the claim and both were keen to reach a resolution considering the extensive work history of the claimant.

The Claimant is seeking payment in a higher grade with retrospection to date of appointment in 2013. The Employer has rejected this claim.

There were two sittings in this case. An issue arose on the first day of hearing in May 2018 for which I needed further clarification and I requested that the parties reconvene to address the topic of tenure in the position commenced in 2013. It was regrettable that a significant delay followed this request before we eventually reconvened in December 2018.

The Claimant has worked full time as a Production Services Facilitator with the company since January 2003. He applied for a production support role in July 2013 and was not appointed at that time but subsequently took up this role while retaining aspects of his old job in October ,2013. There is some dispute on the exact circumstances of how this ascension evolved.

In April 2014, the claimant began to explore the potential for an upward alignment to a higher grade for the work he was doing. He entered a Benchmarking process which proved inconclusive as he did not receive a completed report. He made several requests for the report.

In October 2016, he made the decision to consolidate his role into the Production support role forsaking his anchor position .

The Claimant submitted details of a signed job description for the role he was currently doing on 13 June 2017. This role was titled Production Services Support and approved by his line Manager.

The Benchmarking Grading Result issued on 4 July 2017 and recommended an upwardly aligned salary. The Claimant contended that this was the job he had been doing since October 2013 and he sought application of the higher grade over a 4.5-year time frame. The Claimant had developed a strong sense that he was being “held back “from accessing this position by the management team to allow for external contractor input. He identified the annual differential as €13,741 between his current salary and that of the proposed revised grading.

The Claimant disputed the Employer contention that he was in fact on loan “on temporary assignment “to the Production Services support role. He recalled an earlier meeting with management in April of 2017 where he had discussed Role uncertainty and pay but there had been no mention of temporary assignment. He understood that he was permanently assigned to a busy job for which he was being underpaid. He sought stability in pay.

The Union argued that the claimant had the necessary key skills for the position and it would be illogical to distance him from the position. The Union disputed that the claimant has taken issue and refused to undertake selective tasks asked of him.

The Claimant submitted that he had juggled two jobs since October 2013. He was adamant that he had been asked to take on the job first day without an end date. He believed that he   had always advanced his case on a job to which he had been appointed to and had not been informed that it was a temporary assignment.

The Employer runs a large pharma company with over 600 employees. The Claimant commenced work there as a Student Production assistant and was appointed to a full-time position in June 2002.The Employer had a temporary vacancy in a Production Services Support role in 2013 and the claimant expressed an interest in undertaking the role. The company was presiding over some redundancies at that time and the claimant was vulnerable in that regard. The Employer decided to support the transition to the Production Services Role as a developmental opportunity and temporarily assigned the claimant to the role.

The position had been advertised on a temporary basis in line with the company recruitment policy in January and July 2013. The Claimant was placed third on a panel awaiting appointment. He agreed to take on the position on a part time basis in October 2013. The role was then offered to the claimant in April 2014 on assignment. There was no ambiguity on the tenure assigned to the position as on both previous occasions it had been advertised as an assignment. This was accepted by the claimant. The Employer submitted statements from the Management team in support of the agreed tenure.

In October 2014, the Claimant applied for a review of his position as he contended that his level of responsibility was not reflected in his pay. The Employer conceded the claim and he received a 7.1% increase by way of a revised pay scale back dated to date of appointment in October 2014( Grade 5 to Grade 6) . The Employer experienced some difficulties with the claimant in the hybrid role of production assistant and support that persisted to the date of hearing .

In November 2014, the company proposed that the production services support role (the higher paid position) be independently reviewed to redefine an expanded role and to identify a potential grade level for the revised role. The enhanced role was identified and designed by the External Reviewer and concluded that the enhanced role would only attract a higher salary if the full range of duties were attached to this role.

The Employers main argument rested on the fact that the benchmarked position was a notional position without headcount approval. If approval was secured, they were not prepared to concede this position to the claimant outside an interview process. While the employer accepted that the claimant had filled aspects of the role since 2014, he had not filled the shoes of the entire post.

The Employer submitted that the claimant had engaged in a form of unofficial industrial action in pursuit of his claim by self-selection of tasks he is prepared to do. The job description signed in June 2017 reflected the grade paid since 2014 that of Grade 6 .

The Employer sought that the claim be dismissed in its entirety.

I have considered all aspects of this case. As in all Industrial relations claims, I am conscious that the parties are both actively engaged in an employment relationship during my handling of the case and they will both return to that location.

Temporary Assignments by their very nature can prove contentious. They may start as much coveted opportunities to advance careers, best practice would inform that they be managed tightly and be accompanied by paper work to avoid misunderstandings on either side.

In the present case, I accept that the claimant was provided with a great career development opportunity when he engaged in locum in October 2013. I accept that he interviewed for a temporary assignment. However, it is unreasonable that this temporary assignment was not underpinned by documentation.

I appreciate that extended “temporary assignment “is more the preserve of the public sector than private industry. However, where it is present in the private sector best practice would dictate a corresponding file with frequent updates should spring into being, otherwise the incumbent might adopt “an adverse possession “approach to the job. I believe that this is what occurred in this case. The claimant walked in the shoes of a job he perceived was his for a period of almost 5 years.This period was also marked by a high level of “ storm and stress “ on both sides .

During the hearing, I was struck by the marked delay on the Union side in relation to confirmation of the claimants pay rise back dated to April 2014. This only emerged from the Employers disclosure. I was surprised by this delay in disclosure .

I was also struck on the Employer side by the marked delay in relation to the protracted benchmarking process 2014 to 2017. I found the June 2017 con joined signage of the job description to be a little misplaced on the eve of the release of the Benchmarking Report on July 4. I appreciate that the parties had been in long term discussions on clarifying the claimant’s role, however, the overlap of the two events was confusing.

The parties took some time to reflect on their positions and both sides were 100% committed to scoping out a workable solution in the case. I found this impressive and I would urge the parties to continue to build on this constructive approach and avoid retreating to personalising issues which is “short termism “ and counter- productive .

During the hearing, the parties identified and agreed a mutually acceptable course of action to resolve the Dispute and I am happy to incorporate this in my recommendation to the parties on the merits of this dispute.

Recommendation:

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

I have found some merit in this Dispute. I cannot recommend that the claimant receives a higher grade with retrospection.

However, I have found that he experienced an unacceptable level of uncertainty in his role of Production Services Support which he juggled with aspects of his Production operative role over a 5-year period. The Claimant needs certainty and stability at work. The Employer is committed to working towards this goal with external assistance and seeks certainty and stability in the role. The Union is willing to enter a process of engagement without prejudice or concession.

I recommend that both parties consider the following proposals as the basis for the way forward in the case.

1. That the Employer re-engages the External Benchmarking Expert , (in whom both parties have confidence) on agreed terms of reference within a four-week time frame. Both parties to engage fully in this process.

2.The purpose of the re-engagement is to explore a regularisation of the claimant’s current position through an agreed job description. The Complainant is permitted to have local representation in this process.

3  If agreement is reached, the position will be regularised in full (incorporating all aspects of the higher grade) from the date of such agreement.

The process should have expedited and concluded no later than the last week of February 2019.

Grading in Post