Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Vivian Cullen SIPTU-Trade Union

Michael Mc Grath IBEC

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-00028625-001

23/05/2019

The worker has worked for the respondent for 39 years and at an AO2 grade for approximately 12 to 13 years.

The worker has applied for the executive level Grade 4 unsuccessfully on seven occasions. She has in the past filled in or acted up in that particular role. She has also trained new employees into the role of Grade 4. The complainant is in a unique position compared to anyone else in the respondent entity. Her role and responsibilities are:

·       Reporting fleet status and availability to the Chief Engineer on a daily basis. 90% availability is required to meet contractual commitments to the DAT.

·       Ensuring that all 1024 vehicles in the fleet meet legal requirements.

·       Responsibilities for recording all details of new vehicles, to register them with the revenue via the ROS system and to remove all vehicles that have been disposed of from the system.

·       Providing reports to management on fuel usage, expenditure on parts, overtime and sick leave.

·       Overall administration of Cor payroll for 450 engineering staff.

·       Interaction with the revenue commissioners Dublin City Council on Gardai and the NTA.

·       recruitment.

·       The only individual in the respondent entity who was currently responsible for the licensing arrangement for the fleet with NTA and DCC.

·       Development of the daily peak vehicle report.

On 7th March 2016 the worker wrote to Mr ED, Chief Engineer and HR manager Mr PP regarding the recognition of her role stating:

" I have updated and developed myself in new skills and carried out this work with loyalty and efficiency. Up to the present time I am graded as AO2 at the top of my scale and the grade fails to take into account of the varied volume and responsibilities. I would be grateful if you could look favourably on my application for regrading”

The respondent replied by stating:

“I have also examined your position in terms of duties and responsibilities in comparison to other A02 positions in the respondent entity and I find that they are in line with your current grading of AO2. As such I am satisfied that your current grade is the appropriate grade for the position.”

In 2018 a HR consultant Mr EB was commissioned by the respondent to consider the case put forward by the worker. His finding was that he was not convinced on the evidence that and change to her current grading was justified.

The worker commenced employment with the respondent 1980. The worker is currently employed as an administration officer grade 2 AO2 in the engineering department. This is the highest grade of the clerical and administration grades. The worker is at the very top of the scale as an AO2 due to the significant length of service. The complainant is paid €54,395 per annum.

In August 2015 the worker applied for the role of Executive Grade 4 in the engineering. She was unsuccessful.

In March 2016 the worker sent a letter to Mr ED and Mr Pp titled ‘recognition of role’. The worker requested that her role be regraded. She did not make reference to executive grades in that letter. The worker is at the very top of the clerical and administration grades and is therefore not eligible to be regraded any higher within that grade.

The company met with the worker’s Union representative, and agreed on an exceptional basis, that they would appoint an independent third party to consider the workers application.

Mr EB undertook a comprehensive process of examining the worker’s complaint. He provided a written report to both the client and the company. He accepted written comments in relation to the draft report, followed up with both parties and the workers representative, to seek clarification and feedback on the number of points and subsequently produced a final report which issued to the complainant and the company on the 14th of March 2018.

The worker identified two executive graded roles as part of her claim, Commercial Executive Grade 4 and Engineering Executive Grade 4.

Mr EB identified that the emphasis in the Grade 4 for Executive Role Profile (commercial department) is on managing commercial activities and monitoring costs profitability and managing people.

The Grade 4 Executive role in engineering includes functions in relation to fleet, budget preparations and expenditure control as well as the supervision of staff and dealing with trade union queries.

In his recommendations he stated the following

“it is not possible in a grading structure such as exists in the respondent entity to have absolute dividing lines between grades such that all responsibilities in one grade or clearly of a higher value and all the responsibilities attached to the next lower grade. Certain amount of seepage in both directions is inevitable and would not normally give rise to grading issues.

To the extent that the worker may undertake responsibilities similar to responsibilities carried out by others who are in higher graded positions, I am satisfied that this is almost entirely limited to providing cover for short periods which is a normal arrangement in the company.

I am not convinced on the evidence that I have seen a change to the current grading and ao2 is justified in this case”

Having considered the submission from both parties, together with the evidence adduced at the hearing, I note that the worker has outline her arguments for regrading to both the respondent and to an independent third party. The independent third party carried out a comprehensive investigation of the relevant roles and their functions.   His conclusion was that there was no evidence to support the argument that the worker should be regraded. I can find so evidence, documentary or otherwise that convinces me that Mr. EB findings are not correct.

On that basis I recommend that the worker accept the findings of Mr EB.

I recommend that the worker accepts the findings of Mr EB.