Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Clerical officer

Transport provider

Representatives

Self- represented

Did not attend

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-00019755-001

13/06/2018

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in 2000 as a clerical officer.

He applied to be regraded to an administrative grade on 30 September 2016.The respondent has failed to indicate that his application has been successful.

He requests that the respondent is asked to complete the process of assessing his claim.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 13 June 2018.

The complainant is employed as a clerical officer with the respondent since 2000. He worked on pay roll issues, rosters and general administrative tasks. He transferred to another department on 30 May 2014. His role evolved in this new department and he assumed /was assigned tasks more appropriate to an executive or administrative grade. He states that an executive grade was vacated in 2014. He is currently performing the duties which attached to that post; he develops rosters, work practices concerned with breaks, leave facilities, monitors attendance and staff assignments.

He is aware of other employees having been regraded and of applications in train for regrading.

He submitted a claim for regrading to his line manager on 30 September 2016.

HR responded on 8 November 2016 to state that numerous re grading applications were being considered and that the respondent would contact him in number of weeks. He made two requests for an update in February. On 21 February the HR department advised him that due to a heavy workload it would be a further 3 months before they could process his application. He made 4 further requests for an update.

He submitted a response to a questionnaire as requested on 3 September 2017. He was interviewed for regrading on 24 January 2018.

On 24 April 2018 and in response to his request for an update, HR advised him that” corporate clarification” was required on his application for regarding.

On 14 May he learned that his application for regrading had not been sent to the CEO.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 13 June 2018. He requires the respondent to indicate if his application has or has not been successful.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. The respondent did not submit objections to the investigation of the dispute within the prescribed time limits. The respondent emailed the WRC on 13 August to state that it would be inappropriate for them to attend the hearing as the “matter the complaint refers to is the subject of an ongoing internal company process. There are a number of employees involved in similar processes and it would not be appropriate for the company to attend an adjudication relating to this matter at this time.”

The WRC advised the respondent that in the absence of a request for a postponement, the hearing would proceed on the 7 September.

The respondent did not seek a postponement.

The complainant seeks confirmation on the success or otherwise of his request for a regrading. It is not my role to adjudicate on the merits of the request. That is a companywide assessment process affecting many employees. The complainant’s own evidence indicated that a number of regrading applications were being processed by the respondent and that they were being dealt with in the order of their date of application.

The complainant lodged his regrading claim in September 2016. He has made 16 enquiries between February 2017 and June 2018. Other than his claim has not been referred to the CEO which is presumably the final state of the assessment, he has is no nearer to knowing the outcome 20 months on.

I recommend that the respondent advise him of his place in the queue, the time frame within which it is intended to complete their assessment of his application, and while factoring in a change of CEO, to acknowledge that the assessment process has been very lengthy.

I find that there is merit in the complaint concerning the length of the process.

I recommend that the respondent informs the complainant of his place in the queue of regrading claims, the time frame within which they intend to issue a decision and the process to be used in the event of a disputed outcome.

Regrading claim; length of time in completing same