FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NATIONAL STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer Decision ADJ-00017560.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision. The issue in dispute relates to the role of an individual Worker and the tasks assigned to that role. The issue was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the 18th of October 2018.
A recommendation issued on the 15th of January 2019. An appeal was sent to the Labour Court by the Employer under section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 18th of February 2019.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th of March 2019.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. It is the Workers contention that a particular function that he carries out is proper to a higher grade and is in the main carried out by Workers at the higher grade.
2. The Worker is seeking to have his job evaluated as he believes that he should be paid at a higher rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Employer believes that this particular task only comprises a small element of his job and therefore his job is correctly graded.
2. It is the Employers position that to carry out a job evaluation would be a breach of the Public Service Agreement and that they did not have approval to introduce a job evaluation scheme.
DECISION:
This is an appeal of Adjudication Officer by the Employer. The issue in dispute relates to the role of an individual Worker and the tasks assigned to that role. It is the Worker’s contention that a particular function that he carries out is proper to a higher grade and is in the main carried out by Workers at the higher grade. The Worker is seeking to have his job evaluated as he believes he should be paid at the higher rate.
The Employer does not dispute that the Worker carries out a function that is normally carried out by staff at the next grade. However, they believe this particular task only comprises a small element of his job and therefore his job is correctly graded. It is the Employer’s position that to carry out a job evaluation would be a breach of the Public Service Agreement and that they did not have approval to introduce a job evaluation scheme. They also expressed concern that this claim was in fact a defacto collective issue as they had received claims from other staff seeking to have their jobs evaluated.
It is the Union’s contention that the Employer in 2017 sanctioned a job evaluation for a member of staff so it is not correct to say that they do not have a job evaluation scheme.
The Employer accepted that this had happened for one person but stated that there was a specific set of circumstances which necessitated same.
It is not disputed between the parties that at least one element of the job carried out by the Worker is work that is normally carried out by staff on a higher rate of pay. Neither party in their submissions set out for the Court the duties of the Worker’s current grade and the duties of the grade he is comparing himself to.
Therefore, it is difficult in circumstances where the parties dispute the value of the higher-level task as a part of his over- all role for the Court to decide if as is being claimed that the Worker is being paid a lower rate for essentially doing the same work.
In those circumstances the Court recommends that the Worker’s entire job be looked at in line with the process used in 2017 to establish whether or not the Job as a whole is properly graded.
The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CR______________________
15th April 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.