Claimant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Driver

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-00021912-001

18/09/2018

This case is associated with case ADJ-00016876.  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 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 moved to this department in 2004.  He was a driver and his role involved driving at different sites.  He was approached and asked if he would be interested in joining a new team.  Even though the workload was to increase, and he needed to upskill himself, the Claimant accepted the offer. 

In 2004 the structure within the team was:

One Senior Inspector

Two Supervisory Inspectors

In 2007 a position of supervisor became available and the Respondent advertised the post.  Following an interview process a work colleague was successful.

In 2008 the senior inspector left the role and his post was advertised.  One of the two supervisors was successful and promoted to senior inspector.  The appointment was made in 2009.  Shortly afterwards the other supervisor went on early retirement.

There were then two vacant posts of supervisor however this was during the embargo on recruitment.  The Claimant took up the role of one of the vacant supervisor positions. He took on additional responsibilities previously carried out by his supervisors.

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.

The Claimant submitted that a commitment was given to him that he would receive the appropriate grade of supervisory grade. 

The Respondent’s case is that in July 2018, the Claimant was appointed from his position as driver/plant operator B to acting senior inspector in the section to cover the absence of a permanent senior inspector. 

This acting position continued until the 2nd of November 2018 by which time the Claimant returned to his substantive position as driver/plant operator B which is his current position.

There was engagement between the Claimant’s union and the Respondent dating back to 2016. 

On the 5th of July 2018 the Respondent wrote to the Claimant’s union advising that the team should include a role aligned to grade 5 pay grade.  It was further proposed that this grade would be recruited via competition.

The Respondent’s case is that the Claimant has lodged his claim seeking to be appointed to the position of inspector 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 by competition and contracted to do.  There is no mechanism outside of competition to appoint the Claimant to another position.

The Respondent’s case is that the Claimant has subjectively assessed his role during the period in question and is seeking to have his role regarded from 2014 and to be appointed to a post without competition.

While he was appointed as acting inspector for periods covering annual leave of another employee he was paid an allowance for covering these duties.

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 to that of inspector.  His duties which were assigned and accepted in 2004 are like the duties he continues to undertake.

The Respondent made reference to the Labour Court case a Local Authority Worker –v- a Local Authority LCR 21843, LCR 21800, LCR 206345 and LCR 28101.

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

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

I note that there is a proposal that his team should include a role aligned to grade V pay grade and that this grade would be recruited via competition.

I can only recommend that the Claimant participate in this competition which will be confined to existing employees of the Respondent. 

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 recommend that the confined competition to fill the Grade V post be organised and completed as expeditiously as possible.