Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Specialist Engineer

A Non-commercial State Body

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-00031143-001

26/09/2019

This grievance arises from the dissolution of an organisation, “T1” and the merger of its functions with “T2” to form a new, non-commercial, semi-state utility, “T3”. Prior to the establishment of T3 in August 2015, T1 operated as a commercial state company and salaries were not aligned with public sector grades. One of the consequences of the merger was that the jobs of the employees in T1 were reviewed, so that, on moving to T3, their salaries were matched to public service pay grades.

In T1, the complainant held a specialist role, the only one in the organisation. To protect his confidentiality, I will refer to him simply as “a specialist engineer.” His pre-FEMPI* salary was €94,300. When his job was evaluated to fit into the structure of T3, he was assigned to the grade of Engineer Grade 2, which, on the date of this hearing in December 2019, had a range of €59,765 to €70,645. The effect of this is that the complainant’s role is matched to a grade with a lower maximum point than his current salary, with the result that there will be a detrimental impact on his entitlement to increments and on his pension.

Chronology

In his submission, the complainant said that in preparation for the transfer of staff, an internal grading process was carried out in T1 in March 2014. The complainant appealed against a finding that his job would be assigned to the public sector grade of Engineer Grade 2 and following an appeal, he was assigned to the higher grade of Engineer Grade 1. The respondent’s submission notes that this initial exercise was not based on the organisational structure of the new entity, T3, but was in the context of the pre-merger T1. In September 2014 however, the CEO of T1 announced that a new grading exercise would be carried out and the first exercise was of no consequence.

In March 2015, in consultation with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER), the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTAS) entered into a protocol agreement with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and SIPTU concerning the mechanism for a grading process for the jobs in T3. In April, a consultancy firm was engaged to carry out the grading exercise and in June, the complainant was informed that his role was that of Engineer Grade 2. He appealed against this designation to the grading steering group, but without success.   He then appealed to the chief executive, but his grade remained unchanged.

In March 2016, 18 former employees of T1 engaged in conciliation to make a case for an external appeal process to examine their grades. With no resolution from that process, the parties attended a hearing at the Labour Court in March 2017. In its decision, (LCR21420), the Court advised against a new avenue of appeal and recommended as follows:

“The Court notes that the Respondent is prepared to make the firm (XY) available to consult and engage individually with all of the claimants before the Court. The Court recommends that this engagement should happen and that the individuals should be facilitated to explore fully the processes employed by (XY) and the information utilised by (XY) in making decisions or recommendations including as regards the description or content of the roles considered.

“The Court further recommends that, in the event of any individual remaining dissatisfied after that engagement, they should utilise the already existing grievance procedure in place in the organisation to process any grievance they may have as regards the appropriateness of the grade they occupy as against the duties or functions they are required to carry out. That grievance procedure, the Court understands, can involve referral to the Adjudication Service of the Workplace Relations Commission as necessary.”

In May 2017, the complainant took up the offer of engagement with the consultancy firm.   He remained dissatisfied with this discussion and in December, he submitted a grievance in accordance with the organisation’s grievance procedure. In May 2018, the management confirmed that his grievance was not upheld and he appealed this finding. In August 2019, he was informed that this appeal was also unsuccessful and in September, he submitted this complaint for adjudication at the WRC.

As a resolution to his grievance, the complainant asks that I recommend that the grade for his role is commensurate with this salary, allowing for increments, or that his pre-merger pay scale be reinstated. Alternatively, he asks that I recommend that a new grading exercise be carried out by a different external consultancy firm and that he is involved at each stage of the process.

*FEMPI: The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 had the effect of introducing pay cuts for public sector employees. A phased reversal of the pay cuts began in 2016.  

Current Role

In his submission, the complainant said that his role cuts across the divisions of capital projects, network management and professional services and includes the following responsibilities:

§    Giving geo-technical advice and support to light rail, metro and road schemes;

§    Giving advice on departures;

§    Instigating and managing the adoption of mandatory geotechnical standards by T3;

§    Instigating and managing the recording and classification of geotechnical assets on the national road network;

§    Instigating and managing geotechnical research carried out by UCD;

§    Representing T3 on the geotechnical asset owners forum in the UK;

§    Sitting on a National Standards Authority of Ireland geotechnical committee considering Eurocodes;

§    Notification of any new scheme that carries an element of geotechnical risk.

Concerns about the Grading Process

The complainant set out his concerns with the grading process carried out by the consultancy firm:

He said that an internal calibration committee established to review the initial grading process carried out by the consultants included no staff representatives. Of 141 employees in T1 who moved into T3, 118 were not interviewed.

The complainant said that some of the 118 roles were very specialised and were simply slotted into the pre-defined structure “as best the joint knowledge of (the consultants) and the calibration committee would allow.”

The calibration committee used an organisation chart drafted by the nominated future divisional directors of T3, in line with the requirements of the DTTAS and DPER.

The union was not given a full briefing on the methodology of the process.

No information on the scoring was forthcoming, other than the overall “sizing” of T3 as a whole.

The internal calibration committee guided the outcome of the process in keeping with the constraint that it was required to fit within the T3 organisational chart.

There was no clear record between the consultancy firm and T3 regarding the assessment of roles.

The outcome of the process resulted in the complainant being assigned to a pay grade with a lower maximum point than his current annual salary.

Efforts to Address these Concerns

At the initial internal panel established to consider appeals against the designated grades, the complainant said that appellants were not allowed to make submissions or to raise new information or information obtained during the job evaluation process. Around 60 employees appealed against the grades to which they were assigned and just five had their grades uplifted. Following an internal appeals process, 18 employees referred their grievance for conciliation and then to the Labour Court. The union sought “an external, independent and transparent job evaluation body” to be established. As I have noted in the “Background” section above, the Labour Court decided against this course of action and recommended that the 18 employees be provided with an opportunity to engage on a one to one basis with the consultancy firm to examine their concerns.

Meeting with the Consultancy Firm in May 2017

When he met the consultants to discuss his job grade, the complainant said that it became clear to him that they were not fully appraised of the specialist nature of his role. In his submission, he said that he was “astonished to learn that they knew little of my role or what it encompassed; that there had been little help from management in helping them understand the role; that there was no consideration of how my role may develop in the new organisation; no one suggested I should be interviewed; and that it had been slotted in.” He said that a calibration committee, comprising most of the same people that were included in the steering group found “nothing untoward with the fact that a role was being paid fully two grades higher than the one it had been allocated.”

The complainant said that the consultants would normally carry out a due diligence exercise initially and then an impact assessment after the grades were assigned, but they claimed that this was not required by T3.

The Grievance Procedure

In the documents he submitted at the hearing, the complainant included a note of his meeting with two managers at the first stage of the appeal process, and the letter confirming their decision. He complains that they gave no reason for their finding. He also complains that the two nominated managers who heard his final appeal also provided no explanation regarding how they reached the conclusion that his appeal should not be upheld.

The Complainant’s Position

Before the establishment of T3, when he was employed in T1, the complainant’s role was positioned at grade 4A in T1’s grading structure at point 1.04 on the relevant pay scale. His salary was €94,300. The complainant estimated that the median salary (point 1.0) was €90,673, with €108,807 as the maximum that could be achieved (point 1.2). The current salary range for the Engineer Grade 2 is €59,765 to €70,645 which, he claims, means that he is “highly unlikely to get an increment award before retiring.”

The complainant’s position is that the grading process has failed him utterly. He said that the assimilation of the commercial state agency where he worked into a non-commercial state agency “is a unique occurrence with very little precedent” and the grading of his role required a full understanding of his job and the salary it commanded. He claims that his role was graded at a position lower than that of his peers and colleagues, and the effect of this is that his self-esteem and position in the company has been diminished.   While his salary was transferred from T1, his pay scale did not transfer and his salary is now significantly above the cut-off for incremental increases.

The Grading Exercise

In April 2015, following consultations with DPER, a protocol for a grading review was agreed between DTTAS, ICTU and SIPTU. The protocol agreement provided that,

“A grading exercise for (T1) staff will be carried out in an open and transparent manner with the use of external expertise, as required, and under the auspices of a steering group. The process will include an appeals mechanism and, in the event of non-resolution, will be subject to the normal industrial relations disputes resolution exercise.”

An external consultancy firm was appointed to carry out the grading exercise for the roles to be filled by T1 staff in the new T3 organisation structure. The consultants were given the job descriptions of each employee in T1, but no salary information was provided. In April 2015, employees were issued with a very detailed description of the process involved in the grading exercise and a copy of this note was submitted in the respondent’s book of documents at the hearing. In May 2015, staff were informed of the process that could be used to appeal against the outcome of the grading process.

As part of DPER’s oversight of the establishment of T3, an “employment control framework” was developed outlining the grades to apply in the organisation; however, the consultants were not issued with this document, so it was not instrumental in the assignment of grades to T1 employees. The control framework set out a grade profile for the organisation to be achieved within three years and the respondents claim that this was not a factor in the grading exercise.

In accordance with the protocol agreement, a steering group of management representatives was established and this group had overall responsibility for governance and delivery of the grading exercise.

The task of the consultants was to determine the appropriate public sector pay grade for each job in T1 and, to position the roles of the transferring employees in the newly-established organisational structure of T3. The respondent’s submission provided details of the methodology used to achieve this goal, described as a “job levelling tool.”   The objective of the methodology is to evaluate the contribution of a role to the organisation and to determine the internal relativities or rankings, between roles.   This exercise is carried out by reference to seven standard factors:

i Job functional knowledge

ii Business expertise

iii Leadership

iv Problem-solving

v Nature of impact

vi Area of impact

vii Interpersonal skills

The application of this methodology was said to focus on the nature of the job and its contribution in the organisation as a whole, and not on the job-holder’s competencies, performance, qualifications or current salary.

The sequencing of the job-levelling process can be summarised as follows:

1. The sizing of the organisation and the ranking of the chief executive officer.

To determine the “company grade,” the consultants first determined the grade of the most senior role in T3, that of the chief executive officer. Based on its size and function, T3 itself was ranked as 18 on a scale of 1 to 25. Based on this grade, the organisation would be comprised of three bands of managerial roles (supervisor, middle management and top management) and three bands of individual contributor roles (administrative, professional and subject-matter expert).

2. The identification of “anchor roles” in T1 and T2.

Out of 185 distinct roles (not people), a sample of 35 roles of varying levels and technicality were identified as anchor roles, of which, 23 were from T1 and 12 from T2. These 35 roles represented 200 positions across the new organisation. The remaining jobs were considered to be “non-anchor” roles.

3. The assignment of a “global grade” to the anchor roles.

The consultants held approximately 30 meetings with managers and directors to develop an understanding of the anchor roles by reviewing job descriptions and seeking supporting information. Each role was assigned as belonging to the manager or individual contributor band, (described at 1 above) depending on how it functioned in the organisation.   The anchor roles were then graded in accordance with the seven factors of the job levelling methodology (described at i to vii above), resulting in what was referred to as a “global grade” for each role. This positioning of the anchor roles was described as enabling the consultants “to identify the spine of the organisation, by reference to which the non-anchor roles could be graded.”

4. The assignment of a “global grade” to the non-anchor roles.

The job descriptions of the non-anchor roles were reviewed in the same manner as the anchor roles and they were incorporated into the new organisational structure based on their reporting relationship and their relationship to the anchor roles. From the information presented to me at the hearing, I estimate that approximately 80 individuals occupied these non-anchor roles, of which the complainant is one.

5. The assignment of a public sector pay grade to all jobs.

In January 2015, DPER had determined the public sector grades to apply to the role of the chief executive and certain senior positions in T3 and these top-level appointments established the ceiling for all other roles. For jobs other than the top-level appointments, where a T1 role had been assessed at the same global grade level as a similar job in T2, the existing T2 public sector grade was applied to the T1 job. For jobs, such as that of the complainant, that did not have an equivalent in T2, the steering group sought comparisons with similar jobs in organisations such as the Office of Public Works, Dublin City Council, the National Transport Authority and the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. T1 employees were informed of their public sector grades on June 11th 2015.

Response to the Complainant’s Grievance

Setting out its position that the complainant’s pay grade has been properly determined, the respondent made the following points in relation to the grading process and the outcome:

While the complainant has criticised the grading exercise and described it as not “clear, transparent and independent,” the respondent submits that it was conducted in accordance with the protocol agreed with DTTAS and with ICTU and SIPTU. The consultants were independent in the performance of their functions and were given access to the information that was necessary for them to carry out their task. Employees were informed of the basis on which the consultants would carry out the grading exercise and they were also informed that the performance, skills, qualifications or salary of the job-holder were not relevant to the process.

The job levelling methodology used by the consulting firm focuses on the nature of each role in the organisation as a whole and not on any particular role in isolation, and not on the competencies, qualifications, performance or salary of the job-holder.   The consultants reach their conclusions regarding job grades in the absence of data on salary or performance.

The assessment of the size of the organisation (18 out of 25) and the determination of the grade of the most senior role, that of the chief executive, establishes a ceiling for the grading of all other roles. Similarly, the grades of the heads of departments sets a ceiling for the grades of the roles that report to them.

Employees in T1 were given an opportunity to revise or update their job descriptions; however, the complainant did not make any changes to his. During the grievance process, he said that he was satisfied with the job description for his role that was provided to the consultants.

The consultants engaged in the grading process met with directors and managers, who had an input into ensuring that the consultants understood the job descriptions and the contribution that each role would play in the new organisation. It was only after the Labour Court recommendation of March 2017, that employees had an opportunity to meet the consultants to discuss their own roles.

The respondent asserts that, contrary to the complainant’s submission, the consultants were not presented with an organisational chart into which T1 roles had to fit. They said that the consultants were provided with high level charts “to indicate the overall shape and form of the organisation” but they had full autonomy to assign appropriate grades within the grading structure.

While the assignment of the Senior Advisor Level 1 grade to the complainant’s manager set the upper threshold for the role to which he reports, the consultants could have assigned a higher grade to the complainant, as there remained the scope to do so.

The complainant questioned why a calibration meeting did not take place to consider the relationship of his salary to the grade to which he was assigned, Engineer Grade 2.   The respondents said that this was not part of the remit of the grading exercise. The focus of the grading process was on the nature of the job, where it sat in the overall structure and how it contributed to the achievement of the organisation’s objectives.

One aspect of the complainant’s grievance is his perception that his role is specialist in nature and that it “does not fit well in a hierarchical structure.” He maintained that the consultants did not understand the nature of his role. The respondent’s position is that every job description was fully considered as part of the grading exercise. It was reviewed again during the four occasions when the complainant appealed against the determination of his role as a Grade 2 Engineer and, taking account of all the information available at each stage of the process, his grade has remained unchanged.

The complainant claims that he was given no explanation for the decisions not to uphold his appeals.   In response, the employer said that the purpose of an appeal is not to assess the process adopted by the consultants but to evaluate the outcome of that process. Finding against him at his first appeal, the steering group wrote to him and stated that the job description for his role “was such as to allow accurate identification of the appropriate grade for the position.”   When he appealed this finding, the chief executive concluded that the outcome of the grading exercise was “based on the requirements of the position” and he upheld the finding that his job was correctly graded at Engineer Grade 2.

Following the Labour Court recommendation in March 2017, the complainant met with the consultants to discuss his job description and to make a case that he should be at a higher grade. When he subsequently appealed against the outcome, the managers who heard his appeal met with T3 management to gather information and clarity regarding the grading process. A copy of the note of this meeting was included in the complainant’s book of documents at the hearing. The respondent’s submission notes that the complainant was informed of the reasons for all the decisions that were made and upheld in relation to the grading exercise. At none of the four appeals “was any anomaly considered to exist such as would warrant disturbing the outcome of the …grading process...”

The complainant asserts that he has been graded at a lower level than two of his peers, although, in T1, his role would have been considered as equivalent. He claims that there is a disparity in his grade, compared to the grades given to the roles of his peers who, like him, report to the Head of Engineering Design. However, the respondent submits that the comparators named by the complainant are not appropriate comparators for the purpose of a grading review; in T1, they reported to the Director of Design and Construction, whereas the complainant reported to the Engineering Design Manager, who in turn reported to the Director of Design and Construction. Furthermore, the comparators headed up their respective T1 functions and teams, and continue to do so in T3 and this is not the case in respect of the complainant. While the respondent acknowledged the expertise required for the role of specialist engineer, it does not encompass the same range of responsibilities, from a technical or management perspective, as the comparators he has named.  

The engineering section where the complainant works sits in the public transport division of T3 and some employees had public sector grades assigned to their roles which were higher than the complainant’s role, Engineer Grade 2. The respondent asserts that each role was independently assessed in the context of the structure of the public transport division.   The proposed structure of this division was shared with the consultants and the staff of T1 before the merger. The staff were informed that, unless otherwise indicated, their roles would transfer as they were in T1. For this reason, the respondent claims that the role the complainant would perform in T3 was clear to him at the time of the transfer.

The grade assigned to the role of senior specialist engineer has been assigned to a number of specialist roles in T3. The nature of the job was considered in full and, the respondent submitted that this was the “paramount consideration” of the consultants during the grading exercise. While the complainant’s role was not identified as an anchor role and was “slotted in,” the public sector grades that apply to the roles that were slotted in were not given any less consideration than other roles in the context of the organisation as a whole.

The complainant asserts that he has lost the professional respect of his colleagues as a result of the assignment of his role as Engineer Grade 2. The respondent’s submission states that the complainant is a valued and respected employee, whose contribution to the organisation in the role of specialist engineer is highly valued.

Conclusion of the Respondent’s Position

Concluding their case that the complainant’s job is correctly positioned as an Engineer Grade 2, the respondents said that the grading exercise was one component of the merger of T1 and T2 and was designed to ensure that the staff from both organisations were treated fairly. The exercise was conducted by external consultants was entirely objective.   It achieved a fair outcome for employees in light of the new structure of T3 and in accordance with the protocol agreed with the stakeholders, including SIPTU.

It is the respondent’s position that the grade given to the role of specialist engineer was assigned based on a fair, independent and internationally-recognised grading methodology. It reflects the assignment of public sector grades to the roles of former T1 employees in a manner consistent with public sector practice. The grading exercise took account of the specific responsibilities of the complainant’s role as set out in his job description, the grades assigned to certain senior roles as determined by DPER, the scale and complexities of T1 and T2 and the steps involved in integrating both organisations.  

Finally, the respondent’s submission cautions against any change to the complainant’s pay grade, “arising otherwise than through normal competitive promotion processes.” Any changes to the public sector grades assigned five years ago now could impact on others in the organisation, including some who have been promoted. For this reason, any disruption to the grades assigned in T3 could have a significant impact on T3’s organisational structure, its organisational stability and potentially, on its funding from the DTTAS. It is apparent that these factors influenced the Labour Court in its June 2017 recommendation:

“The Court must respect the fact that those processes appear to have produced a stable organisational structure with a grading framework which is not disputed in terms of its application by the vast majority of staff to whom it applies and which has been in place for approximately two years.”

Context

In 2010, work commenced on a proposal to merge T1, a commercial state agency, it with a non-commercial semi-state organisation. On August 1st 2015, 172 employees from T1 transferred to the new entity, T3. Paragraph 2 of the Protocol Agreement of March 31st 2015 between DPER, DTTAS, ICTU and SIPTU contained the following provision in relation to the employees in T1:

“Having full regard to the staff protection elements of the Roads Bill 2014, it is the position that the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014, the Haddington Road Agreement 2013 – 2016 and applicable Public Service Management and other relevant legislation set out the provisions in relation to the employment of public servants. These provisions state, inter alia, that the terms and conditions of employment of (T1) staff, including terms and conditions relating to remuneration will on their transfer to the receiving public service organisation, be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that applied before the merger into (T3).”

Paragraph 4 addresses the grading of staff:

“A grading exercise …will be carried out in an open and transparent manner with the use of external expertise, as required and under the auspices of a steering group. The process will include an appeals mechanism and, in the event of non-resolution, will be subject to the normal industrial relations dispute resolution process.”

As a new and critically important public sector utility, DPER and DTTAS had oversight of the development of the structure of T3 and the grades of the chief executive and top-level managers. The “sizing” of the organisation, the job size of the chief executive and the grades of the top-level management was the framework from which an organisational structure was developed and all the reporting roles were positioned.

From the discussion at the hearing of this dispute, I understand that the grading process resulted in some jobs being assigned to a grade with a higher salary than the job-holder was paid in T1. As a result, on the establishment of T3, the salaries of these employees were increased. Some roles, such as the complainant’s, were assigned to a grade with a lower maximum point. The salaries of these employees were “red-lined,” meaning that they will not get an incremental increase until their current salaries are less than the top point of their new grade. While red-lined employees have no prospect of incremental pay increases for a considerable period, they remain entitled to any agreed public sector pay review.   On the date of the merger of T1 and T2, the complainant’s salary was €94,300, but the FEMPI cuts had reduced this to €88,756. With the reversal of the cuts and the effect of recent increases, on the date of the hearing, December 4th 2019, his salary was €97,879. I understand that he remains entitled to performance-related increases.

Concerns about the Grading Process

I wish to address the complainant’s concerns about the grading exercise. In the first instance, I cannot accept his assertion that SIPTU was not briefed on the methodology used to carry out the exercise. I was presented with the respondent’s submission to the Labour Court in March 2017, and included as an appendix is a document issued to employees in April 2015 with the title, “Grading Exercise - Note to all Staff.” This contains a clear outline of the job grading plan and the system used by the consultants to carry out the grading exercise, including a description of the information sought under the seven grading factors which have been set out in the previous section. I note from the Labour Court submission that a collective agreement was established between SIPTU and T1 in 2010 and I think it is highly unlikely that SIPTU did not receive a copy of this document when it was issued to employees, if not beforehand.

The outcome of the grading exercise leads to a decision on the “size” of each job within the overall structure.   This is not a “scoring” exercise and, having been involved in similar exercises in the past, I have never known the outcome to be shared with job-holders.   The reason for this is that the subject of the exercise is the job description and not the job-holder.   The job description is the basis of the determination of the size of each job and the process takes no account of the views of the job-holder regarding his or her personal role.

This leads to the complainant’s concern that the external consultants did not understand the complexity of his role and how it contributes to the overall work of T3.   The steering group, comprised of three senior managers, supported by a project team, was responsible for ensuring that the consultants were fully appraised about the function of each job.   This outcome from the initial exercise was then reviewed by a calibration committee. If there was any deficit regarding the scope of the specialist engineer job provided to the consultants, the complainant had the opportunity to rectify that when he met them in May 2017. Having briefed the consultants regarding his job and its contribution in the organisation, the outcome remained that he was graded as an Engineer Grade 2.

The complainant has a concern that the calibration committee whose job it was to review the grading of the roles did so within the constraint of the organisation structure determined by the directors of T3, in line with the requirements of DPER and the DTTAS. The calibration committee was required to operate within the framework of the size of the organisation and the job levels of the chief executive and senior management, which had been approved by DPER. In my view, this was the correct approach to the establishment of a new, publicly-funded organisation. I also have no concern about the fact that staff were not represented on the calibration committee. The calibration of the grading outcomes was the responsibility of managers. I understand that a robust consultation process was established between the respondent and SIPTU and that a staff forum was also set up to facilitate discussion between employees and management on the merger activities. It is my view that, through these forums, the concerns of employees could be addressed.  

The complainant’s overriding concern is that his job was “slotted in” to the structure without an appreciation of its value or a consideration of his salary. I do not consider “slotted in” to be a disparaging or belittling term, as it seems to be perceived by the complainant. Having established the anchor roles, the non-anchor roles were allocated a position and a manager in the organisational structure. As we know, the salary, qualifications, competence and current performance of the job-holder has no bearing on the grade allocated to any role.

I have no doubt that the members of the calibration committee must have been uncomfortable with the anomaly that emerged from the grading review of the complainant’s job.   The allocation of the grade of Engineer Grade 2 meant that his salary was almost €25,000 above the top point of the incremental scale. The existence of an anomaly is an uncomfortable fact, but it does not follow that it can or should be eliminated. In the overall context of the objective to put together a structure for the new organisation, it was necessary to accept that the public sector pay grades would not accurately match the current salary of every employee.

Reason for the Anomaly

Throughout the process that followed the initial determination of his job as Engineer Grade 2, and at the end of each appeal, the complainant claims that he never got an explanation about why he was assigned to this grade, and not the grade that matches his salary. While it is not my role to provide this explanation, I wish to bring this grievance to a conclusion and I see no possibility of achieving that without addressing the reason for the anomaly.

Every job in T3 (and any properly-structured company) is determined by reference to the size of the organisation and the grade of the top-level managers. In blunt terms, it is the difference in the contribution of top-level managers and every other job in the organisation, that determines the value, and therefore, the pay grade, of the other jobs. Of course, there can be exceptions to this rule, but generally across the public sector, this hierarchical principle applies.

The complainant argues that his job is specialist in nature and does not fit neatly into a hierarchical structure. He was the only specialist engineer in T1 and he remains the only one in T3. The special nature of his job is not unique to his role and the objective of the grading process is to find a fit appropriate to its value. The head of the department in which the complainant works was determined to be a Senior Advisor Level 1. There are three grades between this and the complainant’s grade. The outcome of the initial grading exercise in April 2015, that he was an Engineer Grade 2 was determined by a finding that this gap was appropriate, and at each appeal, this finding was upheld. This is an uncomfortable truth but, having sought guidance from the external and independent experts, the management has determined that the job that the complainant holds makes a less valuable contribution to the organisation, in financial terms, compared to the jobs at the grades above.

The reason for this lies in the outcome of the analysis of the job description for the role of specialist engineer against the seven components used in the job levelling exercise:

i Job functional knowledge

ii Business expertise

iii Leadership

iv Problem-solving

v Nature of impact

vi Area of impact

vii Interpersonal skills

When they examined the job description for the job of specialist engineer against these criteria, the consultants and the management determined that, from a technical and managerial perspective, it does not carry out the same range of responsibilities and it does not have the same degree of impact as roles at a higher level in the organisation.

Conclusion

The effect of the grading exercise is that the job that the complainant accepted when he was recruited in 2008 has a lower value in the organisation that he transferred to in 2015.   The change in the job level is not related to the complainant’s performance or his work ethic, or any personal attribute, and I think he understands this, but it must be very difficult to accept. At the hearing, it is clear that the change in the value of the job he occupies has affected his self-esteem and his sense of how his role is perceived among his colleagues and international associates.

The effect of the grading of the job of specialist engineer at Engineer Grade 2 means that there is no scope for incremental pay increases; however, the complainant remains entitled to public pay increases and performance-related reviews. In this way, if he remains in the role, he can aspire to achieving a similar wage trajectory that he would have enjoyed in T1.  

I have now considered this matter and I have examined both submissions in detail. Despite the complainant’s reservations about the outcome of the grading exercise in 2015, there was no evidence that the consultants did not act in a fair and transparent manner or that they were not independent. It is my view that, even with the anomaly that arises regarding the complainant’s role and his current salary, there is no merit in commencing a new process by different consultants. Finally, I must consider the fact that, on four occasions at appeal, the grade of Engineer Grade 2 was found to be the appropriate grade for his role. Taking all of the information available to me into account, I have concluded that the job the complainant currently occupies is correctly graded.

As I have already observed, the determination of a job grade is not personal and is not a reflection on the complainant’s work. He has suffered no diminution in his terms and conditions of employment as a result of the transfer and there are also positive outcomes. He occupies a unique role which offers him a platform for development across many aspects of public infrastructure. He could take the view that, on balance, the outcome of his transfer to T3 is more positive than negative. I would encourage him to consider this examination of his grievance as the end of the dispute resolution process.

I recommend that the respondent takes no further action regarding this dispute.

Job grading