ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013665
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | Health Service Provider |
Representatives | Martina Weir SIPTU-Workers Rights Centre |
|
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-00017852-001 | 09/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
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).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant has been employed with the respondent for over 34 years and is currently employed as a Grade VI Asst.Staff Officer.It was submitted that her workload and responsibilities have increased significantly over the years and that she has been working at a higher grade than she is paid for over 16 years. It was submitted that her role should at least attract a Grade V salary and that she was also undertaking Grade VI functions. The claimant manages 4 staff and a detailed description of her duties was set out. It was submitted that when the claimant met her managers about her upgrading , she believed her grievance was well received and that her managers supported her position. The ensuing exchanges between the parties was presented and a letter of support from the claimant’s manager was submitted into evidence dated the 24th.Jan.2018.The claimant asserted that a colleague employed in a similar capacity in a neighbouring county was paid at Grade VI level. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent asserted that the grading of the claimant’s post was not a matter of agreement and was in dispute.It was submitted that the claimant’s managers supported an evaluation of the claimant’s job as opposed to supporting the level at which the job was pitched.It was submitted that there was a collective agreement with IMPACT on the processing of cases where a dispute arose in relation to the grading of the post.It was submitted that the claimant had not followed through her grievance through the 4 steps of the grievance procedure . |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and note the respective position of the parties. I acknowledge that the letter of support from the claimant’s manager refers to support for the evaluation of the claimant’s job. I further acknowledge that there is an established collective agreement with IMPACT now FORSA on the processing of disputes about the grading of administrative jobs. In these circumstances, I am recommending in full and final settlement of the complaint that the respondent facilitate an evaluation of the claimant’s post within 2 months of the date of this recommendation. |
Dated: 13th December 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea