ADJ-00017866

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

PaulHardySIPTU

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-00023054-001

06/11/2018

The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent, as a Domestic Attendant (Band 4), since March 1985. The Complainant is seeking adjudication, under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, of her claim that the Respondent has failed to carry out an agreed job evaluation to resolve her grievance.

Background:

According to the Complainant’s evidence, her Trade Union representative wrote to the Respondent on 20 July 2017 outlining the disparity between her grade and actual role and seeking a regrading as a result. The evidence suggest that the Complainant received a reply, on 16 August 2017, to the effect that Management were prohibited from regrading outside an agreed collective process.

It was stated that, by way of a letter dated, 1 March 2018, the Complainant’s Trade Union referred the matter on her behalf to the internal grievance procedure. It was further stated that the correspondence clarified that the issue was not one of general evaluation of the Band 4 grades, but was an issue stemming from the fact that the Complainant was not performing the job of Domestic Attendant, but rather that of a Multi Task Attendant.

According to the Complainant’s evidence, a grievance hearing was held on 28 May 2018. It was stated that, at this meeting, agreement was reached that a job evaluation would be carried out in relation to the Complainant’s job. It was further stated that, on 6 September 2018, the Respondent sought the Complainant’s agreement that the review of her role would be conducted by the same Independent Reviewer who was carrying out a general review of the Domestic Attendant role. On the basis that the Complainant was assured that her role and job will be evaluated specifically and that the review was imminent, she agreed to the Respondent’s request in this regard.

However, it was stated, on behalf of the Complainant, that no evaluation was conducted. As a result, on 17 October 2018, the Complainant’s Trade Union representative advised the Respondent that if no proposed date for a job evaluation was received by 2 November 2018, it would be assumed that the agreement arising out of the grievance meeting on 28 May 2018 would not be honoured. It was further stated that as no response was received the matter was referred to the WRC for adjudication on 6 November 2018.

Main Arguments:

The Complainant’s Trade Union representative quoted a 2015 Labour Court case (Linde Material Handling (Ireland) Ltd v TEEU [LCR21020] 2015) to support the contention that the Court has consistently taken the view that agreement should be honoured by the parties involved.  However, It was pointed out that the Court’s view in that case also suggested that the parties to an agreement must be willing to adapt and amend agreements to reflect changing circumstances.

Consequently, it was submitted, on the Complainant’s behalf, that the agreement reached between the parties on 28 May 2018 was adapted and amended on 6 September 2018, at the request of the Respondent.  In this context then, it was further submitted that it was particularly unfair that the Respondent has withdrawn from that agreement without notice and also without arranging for the Complainant’s grievance to be heard at the next stage of the grievance procedures.

In conclusion, the Complainant’s Trade Union representative submitted that the dispute can be settled, fairly and reasonably, by the Respondent implementing a job evaluation process in respect of the Complainant’s role, within 28 days of the recommendation and giving retrospective effect to any consequential change in pay from 29 November 2017.

Background:

According to the Respondent’s representative, a response, dated 16 August 2017, issued to the Complainant acknowledging her letter of 20 July 2017. The Respondent stated that in that letter it was explained to the Complainant that there was a National Agreement in 2003, titled “Recognising and Respecting the Role”, between the Respondent and the Trade Unions, whereby there was a detailed consultative process which contributed to the development of the support staff and the services provided.

It was further submitted that the letter also outlined that the Complainant was assimilated to the Domestic Salary Scale on 1 June 2005. It was also stated that the Complainant was advised that, following a Workplace Relations Commission hearing between the Respondent and her Trade Union, it was agreed that a job evaluation process would commence for Support Staff in 2017. It was further submitted that, consequently, local Management were prohibited from regrading outside the aforementioned process.

The Respondent stated that a meeting took place on 28 May 2018 in relation to the Complainant’s specific claim. It was submitted that, following this meeting, a letter issued from the Respondent, which stated that a suggestion had been made that a job evaluation be carried out and it was agreed that this would resolve the Complainant’s grievance. The letter further stated that, in the interim, the Complainant agreed to carry out her usual duties under protest.

The Respondent acknowledged that there were delays in commencing the review of the Domestic Attendance Role due to the process having to be submitted through the formal procurement process. It was stated that the Respondent’s original expectation was such that it understood the cost of the review would have been at a level which would not require the formal procurement procedures. However, the Respondent stated this proved not to be the case and, as a result, the review was delayed, which, in turn, delayed the job evaluation on the Complainant’s role.

The Respondent contended that as the procurement process had reached a certain point, the Complainant’s job evaluation should be allowed to remain part of that process, in line with the agreements reached in September 2018 between the parties.

Having carefully considered all of the evidence presented in relation to this claim, I am strongly of the view that, if the job evaluation of the Complainant’s role remains to be conducted as part of the overall review of the Domestic Attendants’ Role, it could potentially be subjected to further significant delays.

Consequently, in a context where the Complainant’s situation requires a single job evaluation, where the Respondent agreed to this evaluation as far back as 28 May 2018 and where it is not clear, at this point in time, when the larger review will commence, I believe that would be unreasonable and unfair  to require the Complainant to await the commencement of that review, in order to have her individual grievance resolved.

Having carefully considered all of the evidence presented and based on the findings/considerations as detailed above, I recommend that the agreement, arrived at during the meeting on 28 May 2018, should now be honoured in full and that the job evaluation agreed therein should now take place without any further delay.

In order to ensure that the process is dealt with in an expeditious manner, I would further recommend that the job evaluation on the Complainant’s job take place as an individual, stand-alone exercise, as originally envisaged in the 28 May 2018 agreement and that it should be completed within two months of the date of this recommendation.

Industrial Relations Act

Grievance Procedures

Job Evaluation