Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

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-00014616-001

27/09/2017

The claimant is a longstanding employee with the respondent since 1988.The union charted the claimant’s promotional progression and submitted that she took on additional roles and responsibilities over the years in her current office. Ultimately, she had to pursue a formal grievance through the WRC. It was submitted that after a challenge of 10 years duration she eventually achieved recognition of unfair treatment through a finding by Ms. PC that recommended that the claimant be appointed to a Grade VII post with effect from the 1st.Oct. 2013 and without retrospection for compensation for periods of unpaid acting up. The claimant appealed this to the WRC and a recommendation issued that “ the respondent could not go any further than they already have in relation to the grading and allowances ultimately applied to the complainant but awarded the sum of €3,000 for the manner in which the respondent handled her case”.

When it came to implementation of the foregoing a dispute arose in relation to the matter of whether or not the claimant would be classified as a “new entrant”. The claimant submitted that “new entrant” status would see her annual leave entitlement reduced from 32 days to 30 days per year. She also expressed concerns in relation to the impact of new entrant on her retirement age. It was submitted that the claimant had been assured by Senior Manager Mr. JC that she would not be treated as a New entrant. The respondent however insisted that she would have to be designated a “new entrant” as set out in the Haddington Road agreement.

It was submitted that through the finding of Ms. PC the respondent had already recognised that the claimant’s situation was unique and could be dealt with outside of the parameters of the Haddington Road agreement .It was further submitted that this had been confirmed by Mr. JC and contended that the claimant’s grievance had been upheld by her line manager Mr. MB on the basis that 1) a number of colleagues had been regularised outside the terms of Haddington Road 2) the claimant’s dedicated service of working above her pay grade for an extended period 3) the assurance from Mr. JC that she would not be treated as a new entrant 4) the unique and longstanding nature of her grievance and 50 the fact that there was no significant cost to the respondent.

The claimant was adamant that other unnamed individuals in the employment had retained their annual leave quota notwithstanding the new entrant formula and her line manager Mr. M B asserted that on that basis and the commitment given by Mr. JC that she was entitled to be excluded from the restrictions of the national leave arrangements for promoted staff. She explained that she assumed all outstanding matters were dealt with when she signed up to the full and final settlement agreement on foot of the undertaking by Mr. JC that she would not be treated as a new entrant .

The respondent submitted that the claimant had been promoted by 2 grades under the circular dealing with regularisation of long term acting positions. It was submitted that the respondent’s circular states the DPER Standardised Annual Leave Agreement provides that new entrants and promoted staff in the employment of the respondent should be placed on the standardised band of annual leave for their sector or organisation which range: from a minimum of 22 days to a maximum of 30 days. It specifies that this applies to Clerical/Admin grades and all Senior Management grades. It was submitted that the claimant was now seeking to retain 32 days annual leave in contraventions of the respondent’s circulars on annual leave.

It was argued that the relevant circular applies to new entrants and staff promoted in the respondent’s employment on or after the 1st.April 2014.It was contended that this circular applies in the claimant’s case who was promoted by 2 grades on the 1st.Oct. 2013.

It was submitted that when the previous WRC recommendation issued, the claimant had confirmed on the 16.11.2016 that she accepted the recommendation “as resolving all outstanding claims”. It was advanced that the respondent had accepted the recommendation in full and final settlement of all outstanding matters. It was denied that Mr. JC had given the claimant the assurance that she would maintain her annual leave quota – he stated that while he acknowledged the claimant was not a new entrant, she was covered by the circulars which specified that a max of 30 days annual leave would apply to new entrants and staff promoted after April 2012 and that the process treated staff who had been upgraded as having been promoted. It was submitted that the circulars were applied to all long term acting staff who were regularised under the process. It was submitted that the contract issued to the claimant was a nationally agreed contract through collective agreements. The respondent indicated that the matter of retirement age could be pursued directly by the claimant through the HR Dept.

The respondent asserted that Mr. JC had no authority to indicate that the circular on annual leave for regraded personnel could be circumvented and contended that he was not aware of any circumstances where regarded personnel retained their former annual leave quota. He indicated that the respondent would have appealed the previous adjudication recommendation had they been aware that the claimant was seeking to digress from the nationally agreed arrangements for standardisation of annual leave.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the polarised positions of the parties on the matter at issue. While I acknowledge the claimant’s arguments in support of her claim that that she should retain her 32 days, I find the respondent’s contention that they are bound by the provisions of the nationally agreed collective agreements on standardisation of annual leave, to be more persuasive. Concession of the claim has potentially significant knock on implications for the respondent. I do not have jurisdiction to recommend in favour of a claim that seeks to depart from a national collective agreement and could in doing so unravel said agreement. Accordingly, I do not uphold this complaint.