ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017589
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An IT Online Programme Co-ordinator | A Third Level Institution |
Representatives | SIPTU | LGMA |
Complaint:
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-00022718-001 | 19/10/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/08/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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 permanently employed as an Online IT Programme Co-ordinator since April 2015. The current dispute concerns the worker’s claim that she is incorrectly graded for the work she carries out. The worker is seeking that she be regraded to the role of Lecturer or that the role she occupies be reviewed by a suitably qualified person to determine if she is correctly graded. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker contends that she is incorrectly graded and has been unable to pursue her grievance at local level as there is no process by which her concerns can be addressed. The worker is seeking that she be appointed to the Lecturer grade or, if that cannot be recommended by the Adjudication Officer, that a review of her current role be carried out. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer stated that the worker is correctly graded and that her role differs significantly from that of the Lecturer grade. The employer further contends that given the claim is a de facto pay claim and has collective implications, it should not be processed as an individual grievance/dispute through the adjudication services of the WRC. The employer confirmed that it has received a number of regrading referrals and although there is no job evaluation scheme currently in place, it has committed to undertake a review on the issues raised. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note the employer’s position that there are a number of similar regrading referrals in place and a review process is currently underway. I also note that the employer has no difficulty in the worker being included in the review process. The Trade Union has sought that, if the worker is unsuccessful in her claim concerning appointment to the Lecturer grade, that a suitably qualified person be appointed by the University to carry out a review and determine if the worker is correctly graded. Appointment to the Lecturer Grade Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 states as follows: - (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a Rights Commissioner. On the basis of the provisions of the legislation and the specific nature of the worker’s claim, I do not recommend in favour of the claim for regrading. However, I find it fair and reasonable that the worker’s role be included in the review process currently underway to determine if she is correctly graded for the work she carries out. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In all of the circumstances of this dispute I recommend that the worker’s role be included in the review process currently being put in place by the employer. |
Dated: 28th November 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Job Evaluation, Regrading |