FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GAS NETWORKS IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00012135.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00012135. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim for his current role to be regraded to a higher supervisory grade. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that the role has been graded appropriately and furthermore the Worker is not carrying out a supervisory role that warrants regrading.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 12th July 2018, the Adjudication Officer issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I have considered this matter carefully. I recommend that the complainant accept he is graded correctly and, as advised previously, pursue his regrading aspirations by way of promotion".
The Claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer's recommendation to the Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th October, 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant maintains that he carries out supervisory activities in his current role.
2. The Claimant contends that the Employer has previously deployed colleagues of higher grades to assist in carrying out the duties of the Claimant.
3. The Claimant is seeking to be regraded to a higher grade to reflect the increased importance of his role.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer asserts that the Claimant's role has not changed since it was last evaluated.
2. The Employer further asserts that the Claimant's role does not deviate from the job description issued to and signed by the Claimant.
3. The Employer maintains that it has previously dealt with claims of this nature from the Claimant and has found no merit in same.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by a worker of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation which found against his claim to be regraded from his current grade to a higher grade. The Claimant sought to be regraded from Reinstatement Officer, Grade 8 (now Graded as Grade F) to Reinstatement Foreman, Grade 7 (now graded as Grade E) as he claimed that he is carrying out work of equal value.
The Claimant has been pursuing this claim since 2008. The issue has previously been before many fora, including a Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court in the past. In 2008 his claim was the subject of an independent investigation which found that he was correctly graded and in an effort to bring conclusion to the matter and due to delays in processing the issue, a sum of €6,000 was paid to the Claimant in full and final settlement of the issue.
The Claimant submitted that as the Company have, since 2014, appointed employees of a higher grade to carry out similar work and the fact that he supervises reinstatement activities, he should be upgraded to a supervisory grade. He maintained that his job has increased in importance over time warranting a higher graded salary.
The Company submitted that the Claimant’s continuous pursuance of this issue through the industrial relations mechanisms of the State is an abuse of process. It disputed the contention that the Claimant’s role has changed since it was last evaluated. It stated that the Reinstatement Foreman is a supervisory role with responsibility for allocating work directly to crews, direct supervision on site of methods and quality of work, issuing of instructions on site directly to crews and payment approval responsibility for work completed. Whereas, the Claimant’s role is largely administrative and involves liaising with contractors and Local Authorities to resolve reinstatement issues.
Having considered the submissions before the Court, the Court is of the view that the Claimant has not submitted any facts to substantiate his belief that his role is equal to a Reinstatement Foreman’s grade. The Court notes that a Reinstatement Foreman was placed alongside the Claimant to carry out Reinstatement work due to a backlog in that work between July 2014 and September 2016, however, this was a temporary arrangement only. The Claimant submitted that his duties involve supervising reinstatement activities, however, management point out that these duties have always been part of his job description. This claim was before the Court in 2014 when the Claimant sought pay parity with a Construction Supervisor Band 7.
Having examined the arguments made by both sides, the Court is not satisfied that the Claimant has demonstrated that the changes to his role since 2014 warrant a regrading of his role to Reinstatement Foreman Grade 7 level. Therefore, the Court reiterates its Decision given in Labour Court Appeal Decision AD1448: -
- [the Court]“was not satisfied that cogent arguments have been submitted to uphold his claim for pay parity with a construction Supervisor, Band 7.”
Therefore, the Court does not uphold the Claimant's appeal of the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation, hence, his appeal is dismissed.
The Adjudication Officer’s recommended that the Claimant accept that he is correctly graded and suggested that he should pursue his regrading aspirations by way of promotion. The Court concurs with and upholds the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st November 2018______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.