Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Clerical Officer

Public 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-00015031-001

13/10/2017

The Complainant contends that she was not appointed to the correct point of the scale when she was promoted, having acted in the post for the previous 4 years and 5 months.

The Complainant was successful at interview and promoted to a permanent Grade IV in March 2009.     Prior to this appointment, she had acted in the post since October 2004. On appointment to the permanent Grade IV, the Complainant was appointed to the 11th point of the scale. She queried whether she had been appointed to the correct point of the scale, particularly as a colleague was appointed to the 14th point (1st LSI) in November 1999. In June 2017, the Union became aware of the ‘Policy on Acting Up in a Higher Capacity’ and the dispute was again raised with Management, particularly as the Policy stated under Point 9:

“In addition to the normal pay on promotion rules, in situations where an employee is subsequently promoted to a higher grade immediately following a continuous period of acting-up in that post, s/he will receive incremental credit in respect of the continuous period of acting-up, which will be effective from the date of appointment to the higher grade post, i.e. there will be no back-payment made to an employee in respect of the time spent acting-up”.

The Complainant cites two comparators who were appointed to LSIs and asserts that she should have been promoted to the 1st LSI when promoted.

Upon appointment to the permanent Grade IV, the Complainant’s starting pay was calculated in line with Circular 10/71, the relevant Circular at the time. She first queried her starting pay on promotion on 17/05/2011 by enquiring if she should have been appointed to the first Long Service Increment (LSI) on the Grade IV salary scale. The effect of the application of the Circular 10/71 was to place the Complainant on the maximum point of the Grade IV scale.   It is argued, that even if provisions to grant incremental credit for time spent acting were available, the Complainant would still have been placed on the maximum point of the scale.   The nature of LSIs is that they are an increment paid upon completion of 3 years service at the max of the scale.   This was clarified to the Complainant on 17/10/2011. It is submitted that claim for incremental credit for staff, including the Complainant has been the subject of a Conciliation Conference and two Labour Court Recommendations and that this instant case is an attempt by the Union to reopen a claim that has been before the Court on three occasions, the final claim being referred to the Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act.

In relation to the comparators cited, the Respondent submits that the two employees concerned were appointed to LSI on basis of a previous error and that a cut off date was determined after which no one else in that position would be appointed to LSIs in similar situations.

The process of determining pay in respect of the promotion of the Complainant in 2009, was set out in Circular 10/71 and I find that the Respondent correctly applied the process in the Complainant’s case. I note that in 2010, the Respondent’s Policy on Acting-Up in a Higher Capacity allows for incremental credit in situations where an employee is promoted to a higher post following a continuous period of acting-up in that post. I note that the Policy states: “It has immediate effect and replaces all previous instructions..” The Policy appears to have no retrospective effect and to find that it should have retrospective effect in the Complainant’s case would undoubtedly lead to knock on and repercussive claims. I cannot find that the Complainant’s claim should be conceded.