Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Counsellor Therapist

A Statutory Agency

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00029317-001

26/06/2019

The Worker is employed by the Employer as a Social Care Leader. The Worker has been performing a higher-grade post of Counsellor Therapist since 2005 even though her pay has remained as a Senior Care Leader. The Worker is seeking to be placed on the appropriate point of the pay scale for the Counsellor Therapist grade with effect from 22 May, 2015. The Employer does not dispute that the Worker has been carrying out the role of Counsellor Therapist. However, the Employer contends that it is not in a position to concede to the Worker’s claim due to the fact that no mechanisms exist for job evaluation or re-grading claims and the precedent that this would set if agreed.

The Worker’s submissions in relation to the dispute can be summarised as follows:

·       The Worker is employed as a Social Care Lead with the Employer. Since 2005 the Worker has been working as a Counsellor and from 2010 as a Senior Counsellor even though her pay has remained as a Social Care Leader.

·       From 2012 this anomaly has been raised with Senior Management within the organisation. The Worker has made several representations during the intervening period from 2012 to date seeking a review of her pay grade. In particular, representations were made through Line Management on 18 June, 2015 outlining the costs associated with placing the Worker on her correct salary scale to reflect the role she has been carrying out.

·       The Employer has acknowledged that the Worker has been carrying out the role of Counsellor Therapist since 2012 but has failed to place her on the appropriate point of the relevant salary scale.

·       The Worker does not accept that there is no mechanism to resolve the grading issue particularly when she has been required to carry out the Counsellor Therapist role over such a long period of time.

·       The Worker contends that there are numerous examples of other employees having been re-graded within the organisation to ensure that they hold the correct title and grade for the role that they are carrying out.

The Employer’s submissions in relation to the dispute can be summarised as follows:

·       The Employer acknowledges that the Worker has been carrying out the role of Counsellor Therapist in her current role within the organisation. The Employer has engaged with the Worker over recent years in relation to her claim for a review of her grading to that of a Counsellor Therapist.

·       The Employer is not is a position to progress or accede to this claim due to the fact that no mechanism exists for job evaluation or re-grading claims and the precedent that this would set if agreed.

·       Due to the high cost increasing element of this claim the Employer is not in a position to concede to same. The Employer has been in receipt of a number of re-grading claims across the region and progressing this claim would set a precedent for other employees which the organisation is not in a position to concede.

I have carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions made by the parties in relation to this dispute.

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and concerns a claim by the Worker that she should be placed on the appropriate point of the Counsellor Therapist pay scale.

The Employer does not dispute that the Worker has been carrying out the role of Counsellor Therapist for a number of years. However, the Employer contends that it is not in a position to concede the claim due to the fact that no mechanism exists for job-evaluation or re-grading claims and the precedent that this would set if agreed.

In considering this matter, I note that it was common case that the Worker has been performing the role of Counsellor Therapist for a number of years but continues to be remunerated in accordance with the lower pay scale applicable to her substantive post. It was also common case that the Worker is fully qualified to carry out the role of Counsellor Therapist and I note that when she was absent on maternity leave her post was filled by a Counsellor who was paid at the appropriate rate for this grade.

The Worker contends that the Counsellor Therapist scale is the appropriate rate for the job. It is also clear from correspondence between the Worker’s managers and the Employer that they share the Worker’s view in that regard.

In the circumstances, I take the view that the Worker’s claim has considerable merit and it is clearly unsustainable to continue an arrangement whereby she is not being remunerated in accordance with the appropriate pay scale for the post that she has been performing for a significant period of time.

Having regard to the foregoing, and in the exceptional circumstances of this case, I find that the Worker is entitled to be remunerated in accordance with the appropriate point on the Counsellor Therapist pay scale with effect from the date of acceptance of this recommendation.

I recommend that the Worker is entitled to be remunerated in accordance with the appropriate point on the Counsellor Therapist pay scale with effect from the date of acceptance of this recommendation. This recommendation applies to the exceptional circumstances of the Worker and should not be taken to have a wider implication.

Industrial Relations Act, 1969 – Section 13 – Trade Dispute – Re-grading – Pay Scale