Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Retired Road Ganger

Local Authority

Representatives

Bernadette Thornton SIPTU

Keith Irvine LGMA

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-00021911-001

18/09/2018

This case is associated with case ADJ-00016877.  Both cases were heard together.

The Claimants cases are the Employer failed to apply the appropriate grade or rate of pay in 2009 following vacancies of two supervisory grades in their team.

The Claimant is seeking for the appropriate grade to be applied to him up to his retirement following his “open mindedness to undertake the additional responsibilities of the grade without additional payment during the financial crisis”.  The Claimant is also seeking the appropriate rate to be retrospectively applied.

The Claimant retired from his position in October 2018.

The Claimant moved to this department in 2009 to participate in a project survey.  He undertook the duties assigned to him. 

A commitment was given to him at the time that he would receive an appropriate grade of supervisory grade.

The Claimant’s case is that the public service stability agreement 2013 to 2016 recognises contributions made by individuals as they assumed additional responsibility and a mechanism was developed to address this anomaly.

The Claimant’s case is that he was performing work of a higher value than he was being paid for over a period of several years up to his retirement.

The Claimant submitted that a commitment was given to him that he would receive the appropriate grade of supervisory grade.  He has requested that he be retrospectively paid the appropriate grade.   

The Respondent’s case is that the Claimant has lodged his claim seeking to be appointed to the position of inspector up to his retirement without competition and to be backdated monies for a position which he did not hold. 

The Respondent’s case is that they have always paid the Claimant for the position which he was appointed to do, namely a ganger, until his retirement. 

It set out that this was a regrading claim which is in effect a promotion and is subject to the binding nature of the moratorium on recruitment and promotions in the public sector.

The Respondent has not received any information which would justify a regrading of the Claimant’s position.  He operated at his contracted post for several years and it was only towards the end of his employment that he raised his dispute as to the work he was carrying out.  His duties which were assigned to him and accepted by him in 2009 were similar to the duties he continued to undertake until his retirement.  He had no accountability for the activities he carried out. 

The Respondent made reference to the Labour Court cases of a Local Authority Worker –v- a Local Authority LCR 21843, LCR 21800, LCR 21801.

I have carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. 

I appreciate the dissatisfaction of the Claimant to his grade and pay before his retirement.  However, many other local authority employees and public servants find themselves in the same position as the Claimant.

There are agreed procedures in place for the filling of posts and I must uphold these procedures.  It is not open to one party to decide to change a procedure unilaterally. 

I am unable to accept the Claimants case and I make no recommendation.