ADJ-00017560

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A clerical officer

Government agency

Representatives

Mr Des Courtney SIPTU

Ms Ann-Marie Burke, 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-00022702-001

18/10/2018

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent organisation on 6th September 2003 as a Clerical Officer Grade B. Between the date of his commencement and January 2016 the Complainant successfully applied for two positions within the Respondent Organisation, both positions were also Grade B Administrative positions.

In January 2018 the Complainant wrote to the Respondent’s Human Resource Department seeking a ‘grade review’ by way of a job evaluation exercise. After securing advice from their parent government department the Complainant was informed by the Respondent that his request was being viewed as a ‘cost increasing claim’ and as such was outside the scope of the Public Service Agreement (LRA extension 2018 – 2020).

The issue was pursued by the Complainant’s union official and it was noted that all internal procedures had been exhausted.

The complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 18th October 2018.

The Complainant is based in the Respondent organisation’s Business Excellence Department although for billing purposes he has responsibility for the Respondent’s Marketing and Regulatory Support Department. This billing function is not unique to the Complainant, each department has in post an employee with similar responsibilities, however, uniquely, the Complainant carries out the billing function on behalf of a department within which he is not based.

All of his colleagues with similar responsibilities are graded at Grade C, rather than the lower Grade B at which the Complainant is currently graded.

The Complainant has been carrying out this billing function for almost 6 years. In pay terms there is approximately €9,000 difference between the top of Grade B and Grade C.

This is felt to be unfair and the Complainant’s grading should reflect the fact that he has full and sole responsibility for the billing function for the Respondent’s Marketing and Regulatory Support Department. All other employees with such responsibility are graded at the higher Grade C level and it is felt that the Complainant should receive similar recognition.

Unsurprisingly, management disagree with the Union’s position. The Union believe that the most reasonable way to mutually resolve the dispute is for an assessment of the Complainant’s role by a mutually agreed independent assessor and are seeking a recommendation to that effect.

Background.

In August 2018 the Human Resources Department (HR) met with the Complainant and his union representative to discuss this specific claim. At this meeting it was explained that management were prohibited by their parent government department from undertaking a job evaluation process and could not proceed further with the Complainant’s request. The Complainant and his representative advised of their intention to refer the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

The Respondent also points to the fact that following this receipt of this request from the Complainant, two further and similar requests were received by the Respondent from staff to have their posts evaluated and regraded.

The normal course for career progression in the Respondent organisation is through a competitive recruitment and selection process and internal candidates are given first opportunity to compete for promotional opportunities at administrative levels. By way of example the Respondent points to the fact that in the period 2015 – 2018 a total of six level C promotional posts were advertised and filled. The Complainant only applied for one of these positions in 2016.

Respondent position.

1.       The Respondent contends that this is a collective issue that will have implications for a wider group of workers within the organisation were the Adjudication Officer to issue a recommendation in relation to this individual’s complaint. The Respondent had earlier questioned the jurisdiction, or lack of it, for the Adjudication Officer to issue a decision on the matter under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 – 1990 as they view the complaint to be collective.

2.       The Respondent points to Labour Court Recommendation LCR 21437 concerning the issue of on-call payments for a small group of Nurse Managers. In that case the Court stated:

‘The Court is concerned that any recommendation it might make in the within claim might have implications unknown to it for the delivery of on-call in other settings across ID Sector. For that reason, the Court recommends that this matter be considered as a national matter where comprehensive information can be considered or alternatively that the matter be addressed locally when the parties have established clarity as regards arrangements applying across the sector generally and to nurse managers in particular.’

3.       The Respondent contends that that the same logic should apply to the within case, as any recommendation made by an Adjudication Officer regarding this individual’s claim for regrading within his current role, from a level B to C, would have far reaching and potentially costly precedent-setting implications across the organisation.

4.       Furthermore, the Respondent submits that this is a cost increasing claim, as regrading would attract an uplift in pay and therefore is prohibited under the Public Service Stability Agreements.

5.       This is no longer an individual claim but rather a group claim, and the outcome of this claim may have subsequent knock-on cost implications for the Respondent regarding other staff claims.

6.       Management acknowledge that staff right throughout the Respondent organisation have co-operated with improved service delivery; and all parties to the Public Service Agreements have accepted that efficiencies need to be maximised, and productivity in the use of resources greatly increased through revised work practices and other initiatives to sustain the delivery of excellent public services. However, Section 8.3 of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018 – 2020 is very clear that “the parties agree that there will be no cost-increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment by trade unions, Garda, Defence Forces associations or employees during the period of the Agreement”.

7.       It is the Respondent’s position that although the claim is manifestly precluded under the Public Service Stability Agreement due to the cost-increasing nature of the claim, there are ample opportunities for career advancement opportunities across the Respondent organisation and all staff are given an opportunity to participate in this process.   Specifically, the Claimant could have applied for the numerous Grade C administrative vacancies that arose since 2015 which he chose not to do.

CONCLUSION

1.       In conclusion, the Respondent respectfully submits that no jurisdiction to hear this claim exists under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 to 1990 as the outcome would have implications for a wider group of workers, and it is a cost increasing claim which is precluded under the current Public Service Stability Agreement 2018 – 2020.

2.       The Respondent requests that the Adjudication Officer upholds this position and dismisses this claim under Section 13 of Acts.

There are two fundamental questions that must be answered:

1.       Is this an individual complaint or a complaint on behalf of a body of workers?

2.       Is this a cost increasing claim?

The complaint as presented is an individual complaint submitted by SIPTU on behalf of one of its members. It is not a complaint on behalf of a body of workers.

It is not a cost increasing claim – it is a request to have an individual employee’s job re-evaluated.

I have considered this matter and would now comment as follows:

The Complainant moved to his current position in the Business Excellence area on 4thJanauary 2016. From what I heard at hearing the Complainant continued to carry out the billing and payment process for his former department. It is this function that is the subject of his claim for re-grading. What was not evident or stated at the hearing relates to how much of his current job does this function equate to i.e. is it 10%, 20% 50%?

I also noted at the hearing that it was stated that two other employees have had their positions evaluated during the last two years. The job evaluation system was introduced in 2004 and has been in place since that time. The unions representing employees were involved in this introduction.

In relation to an evaluation of the Complainant’s job it was pointed out by his union representative that job evaluations are conducted in the Public Sector on a frequent basis. It was also pointed out that this is not a claim to upgrade the Complainant’s job, it is a request to have an evaluation of the job completed. It may well be the case that the result could suggest that it is a Grade B position and not the higher Grade C.

My recommendation is that the entire job of the Complainant be looked at using the same methods and tools that were utilised when the system of job evaluation was introduced and should the result show that the majority of the job and not just this single element be in the Grade C (the higher grade) management and union agree on the steps to be taken to rectify the matter.

It is my opinion that steps taken to rectify something that is not correct does not constitute a cost increasing claim. 

My recommendation is that the entire job of the Complainant be looked at using the same methods and tools that were utilised when the system of job evaluation was introduced and should the result show that most of the job and not just this single element be in the Grade C (the higher grade) management and union agree on the steps to be taken to rectify the matter.

Grading.