Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An educational institution

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

Niamh NiCheallaigh, Ibec

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-00015160-001

20/10/2017

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 26th February 2008 as a Secretary Grade II in its Communications and Marketing department. She was promoted on a permanent basis to Secretary Grade III on 11th March 2014.

In her role at Secretary Grade III the complainant acted as a personal assistant to the Director of Communications and Marketing. The Director then resigned her employment from the respondent on 31st October 2016. The complainant alleges that following the Director’s departure she was undertaking additional tasks at a level which was two grades higher from her normal level of Secretary Grade III. She brought this claim to the attention of the respondent’s HR Department on 22nd February 2017 and requested an “acting allowance” for this higher-level work.

The respondent refutes the complainant’s assertion that she was undertaking tasks at a higher level. It argues that the nature of the complainant’s duties may have changed but that this in no way constituted a higher level of role and therefore an acting allowance was not appropriate.

The complainant claims that following the departure of the Director of Communications and Marketing in October 2016 certain tasks associated with her role changed. The complainant claims that these changes were agreed with the Director of External and Strategic Affairs whom she reported to following the departure of the Director of Communications and Marketing. The complainant contacted the respondent’s HR department on 22nd February 2017 to request an acting allowance based on her assertion that she was undertaking tasks at a Grade V level (i.e. two grades higher than her current role). In this request she provided a list of tasks for the HR Officer to review. She provided a further list of tasks on 6th March 2017 and another list on 6th April 2017.

In her interactions with the HR Officer she claimed that she was managing her own workload and some of the work of the former Director. She claimed she was doing this all on a four-day week and was answering calls on her day off (Friday). She also claimed that she had the support from the Director of External and Strategic Affairs for a promotion.

The Complainant stated that she had made no progress with the respondent despite numerous conversations. The workload and the lack of acknowledgement of the issue from the respondent had caused her great distress to the complainant and that she had been out of work due to this reason for the period 3rd July 2017 to 2nd January 2018. The complainant claims that there is now a complete lack of trust between both parties and that the employment relationship has broken down and is beyond repair.

The respondent confirms that the complainant contacted the respondent’s HR department on 22nd February 2017 to request an acting allowance based on her assertion that she was undertaking tasks at a Grade V level (i.e. two grades higher than her current role). In this request she provided a list of tasks for the HR Officer to review. She provided a further list of tasks on 6th March 2017 and another list on 6th April 2017.

The HR Officer discussed these lists with the complainant and reviewed the associated tasks. She also reviewed the matter with HR management and the Head of External and Strategic affairs who has overall responsibility for the unit in which the complainant works. The respondent wrote to the complainant on 11th July 2017 and stated that the activities identified were an elaboration of those listed in the complainant’s current Grade III job description. Therefore, the activities are commensurate with the level of the role and subsequently it was not appropriate to apply an acting allowance. The respondent also stated that in the event of a role being identified at being at a higher level the normal procedure would have been to advertise the role as a promotion opportunity in which the complainant and others could compete for. This did not happen because the role was not identified as being at a higher level. In the course of all discussions with the complainant this message was conveyed to her, but she did not accept the answer.

The HR Officer had requested a meeting with the complainant on 27th April 2017 in order to try and resolve the matter, but she declined. Subsequently two meetings were held with the complainant and her SIPTU representative on 18th May and 7th July 2017 respectively. The respondent was represented at these meetings by the Head of External Affairs and the HR Manager.   At these meeting the above points were again made and the respondent stated that it was willing to look at the volume of work to ensure the complainant did not feel overwhelmed and would also review whether some tasks should be reassigned. It was communicated to the complainant that such a review would occur when she returned to working a 5-day week which was due to happen shortly, upon the expiry of her parental leave. The complainant did not accept this position and was subsequently absent from work due to stress during the period 3rd July 2017 to 2nd January 2018.

There was one further meeting held during this period in an effort to resolve matters. This was held with the complainant, her SIPTU representative and the Employee Relations Manager on 25th August 2017. Unfortunately, no progress was made as the complainant would not accept any solution which did not involve an acting allowance for operating at a higher level. SIPTU indicated at that meeting that they would be referring the matter to the WRC.

The respondent asserts that the tasks associated with the complainant’s role were at a Grade III level and as a result there was no reason for the complainant to receive an acting allowance. The respondent also refutes the complainant’s assertion that the Head of External Affairs supported her claim for an acting allowance or her overall ambition of permanent promotion. The respondent believes it has made every effort to resolve this case but has been unsuccessful due to the complainant’s unwavering belief that she should receive an acting allowance.

The respondent also asserts that the employment relationship has been severely damaged and cannot currently see a way forward with the complainant. The respondent also noted that SIPTU had indicated that the complainant felt she was being forced out of the organisation due to its refusal to recognise her claim that she has been working at a higher level.

The respondent confirms that the complainant contacted the respondent’s HR department on 22nd February 2017 to request an acting allowance based on her assertion that she was undertaking tasks at a Grade V level (i.e. two grades higher than her current role). In this request she provided a list of tasks for the HR Officer to review. She provided a further list of tasks on 6th March 2017 and another list on 6th April 2017.

The HR Officer discussed these lists with the complainant and reviewed the associated tasks. She also reviewed the matter with HR management and the Head of External and Strategic affairs who has overall responsibility for the unit in which the complainant works. The respondent wrote to the complainant on 11th July 2017 and stated that the activities identified were an elaboration of those listed in the complainant’s current Grade III job description. Therefore the activities are commensurate with the level of the role and subsequently it was not appropriate to apply an acting allowance. The respondent also stated that in the event of a role being identified at being at a higher level the normal procedure would have been to advertise the role as a promotion opportunity in which the complainant and others could compete for. This did not happen because the role was not identified as being at a higher level. In the course of all discussions with the complainant this message was conveyed to her, but she did not accept the answer.

The HR Officer had requested a meeting with the complainant on 27th April 2017 in order to try and resolve the matter, but she declined. Subsequently two meetings were held with the complainant and her SIPTU representative on 18th May and 7th July 2017 respectively. The respondent was represented at these meetings by the Head of External Affairs and the HR Manager.   At these meeting the above points were again made and the respondent stated that it was willing to look at the volume of work to ensure the complainant did not feel overwhelmed and would also review whether some tasks should be reassigned. It was communicated to the complainant that such a review would occur when she returned to working a 5-day week which was due to happen shortly, upon the expiry of her parental leave. The complainant did not accept this position and was subsequently absent from work due to stress during the period 3rd July 2017 to 2nd January 2018.

There was one further meeting held during this period in an effort to resolve matters. This was held with the complainant, her SIPTU representative and the Employee Relations Manager on 25th August 2017. Unfortunately, no progress was made as the complainant would not accept any solution which did not involve an acting allowance for operating at a higher level. SIPTU indicated at that meeting that they would be referring the matter to the WRC.

The respondent asserts that the tasks associated with the complainant’s role were at a Grade III level and as a result there was no reason for the complainant to receive an acting allowance. The respondent also refutes the complainant’s assertion that the Head of External Affairs supported her claim for an acting allowance or her overall ambition of permanent promotion. The respondent believes it has made every effort to resolve this case but has been unsuccessful due to the complainant’s unwavering belief that she should receive an acting allowance.

The respondent also asserts that the employment relationship has been severely damaged and cannot currently see a way forward with the complainant. The respondent also noted that SIPTU had indicated that the complainant felt she was being forced out of the organisation due to its refusal to recognise her claim that she has been working at a higher level.

As this case is taken under the Industrial Relations Act the Adjudicator has scope to make a recommendation to resolve the issue that is acceptable to both parties. With this in mind I am recommending that the complainant’s role is terminated and that she receives a termination payment in line with the provisions of option 1 of the collective agreement for public servants employed in the Education and Training sector (dated 14 May 2014).

This payment would be subject to the following terms and conditions:

• The role cannot be replaced by the employer
• The complainant must accept the she will not be eligible for re-employment in the Public Service by any Public Service body for a period of two years from termination of employment. She must also sign a declaration to this effect
• The payment is subject to sanction by the Department of Education and Skills and/or the Higher Education Authority

Relationship damaged, Grading.