Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Third Level Institute

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-00023177-001

13/11/2018

The claimant has been employed by the respondent since 1995 and works as a Goods Inward Attendant with the college.The claimant was aggrieved with the respondent’s failure to upgrade his post to the max of the Grade 111 scale.It was submitted that the claimant was undertaking the Goods Inward role since 1997 and that the role should have been recognised as Grade3 Clerical Officer minimum from that point onwards.It was submitted that an external report issued in 1997 and recommended the designation of the post as a Grade 111 Clerical Officer.This was acknowledged by the college’s Financial Controller in a presentation to the college’s Governing Body in Feb.2003. It was further advanced that the college will be advertising the post as a Grade 111 Clerical Officer following the claimant’s retirement.The claimant’s line manager had confirmed to him   in April 2018 that he supported the regarading of the claimant’s post to Grade 3.It was submitted that a number of sister colleges have designated the Goods Inward Clerk as Grade 3 or higher.The union set out a chronology of their engagement with the respondent on the grievance.It was submitted that the claimant has an exemplary employment record with the respondent and that he continues to work above his grade – a grade that no longer exists.It was submitted that there was no reasonable basis to decline the claim given the recommendation of the external report in 1997 and the Financial Controller’s recommendation in 2003.In February 2018 , the respondent’s HR manager wrote to the claimant suggesting that because he was “unable to support a request to the Dept. for an upgrade of your post in the absence of an agreed job evaluation mechanism …the only alternative I can see is for you to seek to obtain support for your request through your line manager , through to the Secretary /Financial Controller”.

The respondent submitted that the claimant was not entitled to have his role regraded .It was submitted that the HR manager had corresponded with the claimant on the 11th.Oct. 2017 advising that “there is no process for regrading of posts outside of that which happens at national level following discussions between the Dept. and the Trade Unions.It is therefore not possible to have your attendant post reviewed to be upgraded to Higher Order Attendant”.The respondent’s representative set out a chronology of the ensuing exchanges between the parties.The parties continued in dispute and the final response issued by the HR manager on the 19th.Sept. 2018 advised that the respondent “ did not have the authority to review the Complainant’s Grade and again referring to the correspondence from the Dept. of the 17th.Sept. 2017 “concerning the Regrading of Higher Order Attendant’s as Technical Assistants”.

It was submitted that the respondent did not have the liberty to regrade the claimant’s role and that they did not have the authority from the Dept. of Education and Skills to do so.It was submitted that the matter at issue was of a collective nature and would be better served by raising it with the Dept. at national level.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties.I found the union’s contention that the post merits regrading on the basis of a report that issued in 1997 and was never implemented persuasive but consider that the lapse in time since the implementation of that report undermines the union’s case.It would appear that the claim was first formally raised in 2017.However , I understand that the external assessment was a matter of agreement between the colleges and the trade union representing administrative grades at the time – i.e. Impact – and to some extent this may explain the delay in pursuing the claim.I also acknowledge that another position of Grade VI administrative officer which was recommended by the assessor was not implemented until 2010.

The respondent for their part insists that their hands are tied and have no discretion to deal with the claim. It was suggested that the matter of the regrading of the post would have to be dealt with at national level. Notwithstanding this the respondent was unable to explain how 3 other colleges had designated the Goods Inward position at Grade 111 and Grade IV level and a neighbouring college had dealt with the reclassification of Higher Order Attendants at local level. Additionally , I note that the respondent advised the claimant on the 20th.Feb. 2018 , “in the absence of an agreed job evaluation   mechanism “ …….” To seek to obtain support for your request , through your line manager , through to the Secretary/Financial Controller”.The claimant’s line manager confirmed in writing to the claimant on the 25th.April 2018 that he advised the HR manager that “ having reviewed pay-scales , and job descriptions , etc., I would support a regrading of your position to Grade 111 admin grade”.The line manager also confirmed to the claimant n the 22nd.May 2018 that if the claimant were to leave , “I would seek to replace you with a Grade 111 Administrator.” When questioned about this confirmation from the line manager about the appropriate level of the claimant’s post , the respondent replied that it was not within the line manager’s gift to regrade the post. Taking all of the foregoing into account and

a)       the insistence by the respondent that the job evaluation route – adhoc or otherwise – was not an option

b)      given that an independent assessment recommended that the level of the post should be pitched at Grade 111

c)       The fact that the post is graded at Grade 111 in 2 other colleges and Grade VI in another sister college and

d)      The cliamant’s line manager supported the regrading of the claimant’s position

I have concluded that the claimant has a legitimate grievance and accordingly I uphold his complaint. I recommend in full and final settlement of this dispute that the respondent reclassify the claimant’s post to that of Clerical Officer Grade 111.As the claimant first pursued a review of his grading in 2017 , I recommend that he be assimilated onto the 8th.point the Grade 111 scale (not the New Entrant scale) with effect from the 1st.Oct. 2017 following which normal progression applies. I recommend that the time frame for implementation of this recommendation is 42 days from the date of this recommendation.