LCR21814

The Recommendation is as follows.

1.The Complainant utilise the Progression Cycle at a very early date. The Respondent to expedite this.

2.The issue of the regrading from C2 to C3 to be decided strictly on its own merits irrespective of any externally decided “limits or ceiling / budget restrictions” on Grade movements.

3.If an eternal limit or “numerical celling” on regrading is an issue this should be discussed with the Complainant and her Union post and independently of the outcome of the Progression cycle regrading decision.

4.If this becomes the future stumbling block, then the issue can be referred back for a separate Adjudication decision on this specific “Ceilings” point

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 22 June 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 October 2018.

DECISION:

The issue in dispute between the parties arises from the transfer of the Worker under a TUPE arrangement to the Employer. On transfer to the new Employer the Worker was mapped at “Grade Band 2”. It is the Worker’s contention that he was mapped incorrectly and should be at “Grade Band 3.”

The Worker processed his claim through the internal procedure in the first instance and then on to the WRC where the Adjudication Officer had recommended that the Worker utilise the Progression Cycle at a very early date. The opportunity to do so had not yet arisen. It is the Union’s position that based on the duties of the Worker and the level of responsibility attached to his post he should be graded at “Grade Band 3” level. In the Union’s submission they set out examples of the work that they believe justifies the Worker seeking an upgrade to the higher level. The Union on behalf of the Worker advised the Court that the Worker’s line manager supported his claim. It is their position that despite processing their grievance through all the avenues available to them the question of the appropriate level for the Worker’s role had not been resolved and the Worker is still carrying out the higher duties.

The Union on behalf of the Worker acknowledge that there is an in-house system known as “the Progression Cycle” which is the internal process used to assess if a given role has been properly graded. However, for the Worker to engage with this process there would have to be a Grade level B3 post available in that system and that was not always the case.

It is the Employer’s position that the Worker’s role was subjected to a thorough investigation and mapping process prior to the transfer which had identified “Grade Level B2” as the appropriate grade. The Worker’s complaint has been through the grievance procedure and has been unsuccessful. It had been proposed that he should participate in the Progression Cycle but he had declined to do so. The Employer did acknowledge that there may not have been B3 posts available in the Cycle at all times. The Employer’s Representative informed the Court that following the issuing of the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation the Employer had explored the possibility of expediating the Progression Cycle. However, it was not possible to do this without impacting on other employees. The Employer had offered to the Worker coaching and mentoring sessions with an experienced member of staff in advance of the next Progression Cycle which falls due December 2018 but this offer had been declined. The Representative of the Employer also confirmed to the Court that there would be two “Grade Band 3” posts in the December 2018 Progression Cycle.

The Court having considered the detailed submissions of both parties and the oral submissions made on the day recommends that the Worker engages with the December 2018 Progression Cycle and avails of the coaching and mentoring sessions being proffered. The Adjudication Officers recommendations is varied accordingly.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
LS______________________
06 November 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.