Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

An Educational Training Board

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-00026336-001

18/02/2019

The worker is employed by the employer as a Clerical Officer Grade 3 since September 2011. The current dispute relates to the duties currently being carried out by the worker. The worker is seeking a Job Evaluation exercise in relation to his current duties within the organisation.

Both parties furnished written submissions at the adjudication hearing. Further documents were submitted on behalf of the respondent after the adjudication hearing had concluded. The most recent date of receipt of additional information was 2nd July 2019.

The worker stated that in November 2015 the role of I.T. Co-ordinator became available. The worker stated that despite being graded as a Clerical Officer Grade 3, he has taken on the role of the I.T. Co-ordinator which he contends is a Grade 7 position. The worker is aggrieved that he has taken on the extra duties and responsibilities, but this has not been reflected in his grade and rate of pay. The worker is seeking a job evaluation given the level of changes that have occurred to his role in the organisation.

Pre-liminary point

The employer argued that the dispute is not within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) by virtue of Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 which 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 if to a Rights Commissioner.

Substantive issue

The employer stated that expressions of interest were sought in April 2016 in relation to an I.T. Support Administration role which the worker agreed to undertake. The employer stated that this role was aligned to the worker’s grade of Clerical Officer Grade 3 and the new role was accepted by the worker on that basis.

The employer stated that from February 2017 onwards, the worker sought a review of his salary and position as a result of undertaking additional duties following the departure of two Grade 7 employees from the organisation. The employer stated that the worker also conveyed his understanding that a business case was being put forward in relation to an I.T. Co-ordinator post.

The employer stated that the worker sought to invoke the grievance procedure in April 2018 but that the grievance process was not applicable, and that the organisation was obliged to operate within the Department of Education and Skills (DES) approved allocation of administrative staff numbers and grades.

The employer stated that the worker sought a job evaluation in or around November 2018 but was informed that there was no job evaluation process possible within the education sector.

The employer’s position is that the role accepted by the worker was always appropriate to the Clerical Officer Grade 3 level and it was never the position that the worker was “acting up” to a higher grade. In relation to an I.T. Co-ordinator post the employer stated that this role is carried out centrally with support available locally via a Helpdesk system which is at Clerical Officer Grade 3 level.

The employer contends that there is no merit in the worker’s claim and that it should be dismissed in its entirety.

Preliminary Point

In line with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, a Rights Commissioner (now WRC Adjudication Officer) is unable to make recommendations in relation to disputes concerning hours of work, rates of pay or annual leave. However, this applies to “a body of workers.”

Accordingly, I am not restricted from making a recommendation in relation to a dispute concerning an individual worker who contends he is not appropriately graded for the work he carries out.

Substantive issue

At the adjudication hearing the parties agreed to explore informal talks in relation to addressing the worker’s concerns. However, these talks did not take place following instructions from the Department of Education and Skills amid concerns that the discussions may be misinterpreted by the worker as constituting a Job Evaluation.

In all of the circumstances of this dispute, I am of the view that the worker has identified sufficient changes to his duties since taking on the role of I.T. Support Administrator in April 2016 but also as a result of staff changes and departures from February 2017 onwards. I find that the only fair and reasonable way to address the worker’s concerns and resolve this dispute is for the worker’s current role to be assessed objectively.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I recommend that a suitably qualified person be agreed with the Union and appointed to conduct an assessment of the role as currently carried out by the worker. The cost of this process should be met by the employer.

If, after the conclusion of the assessment process, the role is deemed suitable to a higher grade the newly identified post should be the subject of a transparent recruitment process advertised in line with normal practice.

This recommendation is based on the particular circumstances of this dispute and should not be cited as precedent in any further disputes of this kind.

Re-grading, job evaluation