Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Transport Company

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

Ms S. Morris

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-00016030-001

28/11/2017

Both parties agreed that all internal procedures for the dispute had been exhausted.  I heard the matter on 12 March 2018. The final documentation relating to the complaint was received from the respondent on 11 April 2018.

The complainant seeks a re-grading of his position from Team Leader B to Team Leader C (an upgrade), given that he does the same work as his colleagues who hold the grade of Team Leader C. Alternatively, he seeks a job evaluation.

The complainant, who has worked for the respondent, with interruptions, since 1994, came into his current role when a storage team and a post team were combined. In the course of this re-organisation, he lost his shift allowance, but declared himself satisfied with the financial solution arrived at.   He also said that the working atmosphere on the team was very good and that his colleagues were supportive of him in the dispute.

The respondent stated that the situation in the team, in terms of grades, came about due to an employment agreement by which staff who were re-deployed to do work that was less than their grade nevertheless retained their terms and conditions of employment. The employment agreement was subsequently submitted and received on 11 April 2018.   From my review of the agreement, I am satisfied that the re-organisation carried out by the respondent which gave rise to the dispute in hand falls within the parameters of the agreement, both in terms of its flexibility provisions as well as the red-circling of staff in terms of grade. In the dispute on hand, the respondent had six workers and four roles on the amalgamated team, but this was resolved as one worker took voluntary redundancy and one worker sought a transfer to other duties. It then so happened that the three workers apart from the complainant were two grade C workers and one grade D worker.

The respondent accepts that the complainant and the grade C workers all do the same job.     However, it states that the job was evaluated by the Hays method and was found to be at a grade B skill level.   There is therefore no reason to upgrade the complainant to grade C. On the other hand, the respondent does not wish to breach the agreement it has entered into with the union.   The respondent accepts that the situation must appear unfair to the complainant, but it is not prepared to upgrade the complainant when the role description does not warrant it.

In its written submission, the respondent also made the argument that the within dispute would be a “cost-increasing claim” within the meaning of LCR21560.

Both parties were agreed that the situation is somewhat unique due to the small size of the team, and the fact that, somewhat by chance, all staff other than the complainant are red-circled, higher grade staff. It was also accepted by both parties that if any of those staff were to leave the team, they would be replaced by grade B staff.

I have considerable empathy with the complainant in terms of how unfair his situation must appear to him, going to work on a day-to-day basis. That said, I do not feel that I can make a recommendation in his favour.   His basic pay and terms and conditions of employment suffered no diminution. The loss of his shift allowance was resolved to his satisfaction. No cogent argument against the evaluation of the roles in the team as being at grade B was made.   I therefore accept that they were correctly assessed. The benefits which his colleagues enjoy are the result of an agreement which all worker can potentially benefit from if they are in the same situation, including the complainant. This is of great value to all staff of the respondent and should not be tampered with unless it can be shown that roles were deliberately misevaluated for the purpose of saving money, which is not the case here.   Accordingly, I find the situation should be left as is, even if it feels subjectively detrimental to the complainant.

I recommend that the respondent continue to implement their union-negotiated agreement, in terms of the staff in their post and storage unit, as they do at present. I accept the respondent’s evidence that if any of the C-graded workers leave the unit, they will be replaced by B-graded workers.

Industrial Relations Act 1969 – LCR21560 – “red-circling” of workers doing less qualified work – no right to an upgrade if role is correctly assessed.