Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A housing welfare officer

A Local Authority

Representatives

Shane Lambert

Keith Irvine

LGMSA

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-00030477-001

26/08/2019

The Complainant is a housing welfare officer and the Respondent is a local authority.

The Complainant was in employment with the Respondent but had a dispute as to his level of pay.

The dispute could not be resolved at local level.

The Complainant’s claim was that he was paid on the appropriate pay scale for a professional qualified social worker.

However, over the last number of years he had operating at a higher level than that of his substantive pay grade continuously. This was because of requests and expectations from his employer to do so. He assumed the roles of considerable responsibility far above his substantive grade.

He submitted that he was managing the regional homeless executive. He was a budget holder for same. He was reporting directly to the Department of Housing.

The Complainant submitted that he was out of line with the normal pay grade levels of peers who sit on the national committees with him.

He was seeking recognition for additional duties and responsibilities that had been imposed on him. He submitted these were more akin to that of a senior social worker grade.

The Respondent’s case is that it was a matter for its Chief Executive to determine the level at which a social worker is required under its workforce plan and the structure of the housing support team.

The Respondent’s workforce plan, which was approved by the relevant Government Department provides for one post of social worker only and there is no senior post provided for.

The Respondent submitted that the claim made by the Complainant was a cost increasing claim and in current circumstances being viewed in terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010 to 2014 (Croke Park Agreement), the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013 to 2016 (Haddington Road Agreement) and the Haddington Road Agreement further consolidates the position at Sections 5.1 and 5.2 and this is reflected in Section 8.3 of the current Public Service Agreement which confirms

“the parties agree that there will be no cost increase in claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment by trade unions, Garda and defence force associations or employees during the period of the agreement”.

The Respondent maintained that the Complainant’s role is correctly graded for the type of duties being undertaken by him.

I have considered carefully the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The parties were in dispute as to whether the claim would represent a breach of the Public Service Stability Agreement.

The Complainant’s representative sought a job evaluation of the work carried out by the Complainant. The Respondent doubted that this could be carried out and that it was not reasonable to have the job evaluated.

I must have regard to the fact that there is no agreement in place for a job evaluation scheme within the Respondent.

Therefore, having regard to all the circumstance, I recommend that the claim be dealt with in the context of any agreement which might emerge in the future from national engagement between the parties, but I don’t recommend that this specific role should be individually subjected to a job evaluation.

I am guided by the recent Labour Court decision in LCR22184.

The complaint is not well founded.

Public Service Stability Agreement

Job evaluation