ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006043
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Clerical Officer | A Healthcare 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-00008352-001 | 23/11/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/03/2017
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 complainant was first employed by the respondent in 1978. Her grade is that of clerical officer. The matter in dispute concerns the alleged “rate for the Job” in her current position which she has undertaken since January 2011. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing which was adjourned to facilitate an external evaluation. The complainant is due to retire in April 2018 and has asked that I issue a recommendation in the absence of an evaluation at this point. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that she took on her current Grade IV (evaluated in December 2008) role on the clear understanding that she would be properly remunerated on cessation of the moratorium. It has been acknowledged that her performance has been excellent. This matter was first raised with management in 2011 and her request for grade increase was supported by local management but refused citing the moratorium. Her trade union wrote to management in August 2016 who informed it that the only possible method of progression was by way of job evaluation. The matter was referred to the WRC as the respondent has refused to apply the scheme since. The complainant is scheduled to retire shortly. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that whereas it understood that the complainant’s grade had been approved for upgrade in 2007 no formal approval was received. It’s application for upgrade was suspended as a result of the introduction of the moratorium in March 2009. It is accepted that there is a need for a Grade IV within the department however all secretarial positions are graded at 111 level. The herein post which was previously put on hold is not recognised as Grade IV as there are no such posts within the department. Details of the new job evaluation scheme were circulated to all staff and provide an opportunity for the complainant to progress the matter. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I am conscious of the fact that the parties agreed to attempt to progress this matter through the job evaluation scheme without success (it has not been accessed to date). I am also conscious of the pressing nature of this application to the complainant. Accordingly I therefore recommend based on the unique circumstances of this case and the pressing nature of the need to resolve the matter that the Grade IV claim be conceded with appropriate backdating, on a “red circle” basis. |
Dated: 26/02/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes