ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019077
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Clerical Worker | A Bus Company |
Representatives | National Bus & Rail Union | HR Department |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00024618-001 | 03/01/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/04/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969,following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker is employed by the employer as a Clerical Grade C and has been in the employment since 2006. The worker previously held the position of Clerical Grade B but was regraded to Clerical Grade C in 2015 following an internal process. The current dispute concerns the worker’s application to be regraded from Clerical Grade C to Staff Officer Grade 2 on the basis of the expanded role which she carries out. The employer rejects the claim. The Union is seeking retrospective application of the regrading to 22nd January 2018. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Union (on behalf of the worker) stated that the worker carries out tasks on a daily basis that are beyond her current grade. The Union contends that the worker’s role is analogous to the duties and responsibilities as carried out by Staff Officer Grade 2 at the very least and possibly even Staff Officer Grade 1. The Union stated that the worker attempted to process her application internally but ultimately her application for regrading was unsuccessful. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer stated that in line with a recent Labour Court Recommendation, company wide reviews are currently underway in relation to Clerical and Executive grades under the auspices of the Conciliation and Mediation Services of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The employer stated that at the present time, the worker is correctly graded for the role she carries out. The employer also confirmed that the worker would benefit from any regrading that may occur as a result of the ongoing reviews but that it cannot agree to a regrading outside of that collective process. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A Labour Court Recommendation in the respondent company recommended that reviews should take place “which should be conducted utilising all normal industrial relations procedures as required, should focus on balancing the legitimate expectations of the staff at [Name of Employer] and the legitimate and necessary objective of company viability, sustainability and growth.” While the employer has stated that the worker is graded correctly at the present time, it has also confirmed that the worker will benefit from any regrading that arises as a result of the reviews currently underway at the WRC. As the review process is ongoing, which the worker may well benefit from, I find that issuing a recommendation outside of that collective process would inevitably lead to repercussive claims which would undermine that collective process and would jeopardise the implementation of the Labour Court recommendation and future viability of the employer. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, and for the reasons stated above, I do not find in favour of the worker’s claim. |
Dated: 30/07/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Regrading |