ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025308
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An employee | Public Service Body |
Representatives | Self represented | David Green |
Complaint:
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-00032174-001 | 13/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.
Background:
The Complainant has a dispute with her employer regarding the handling of a job evaluation application she made to have her job upgraded. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that she commenced employment with the Respondent in April 2003. She held a substantive post for 10 years May 2006 to May 2016. She has held a temporary higher post acting in a grade above the substantive post from May 2016 to current date. Following advice from her trade union and management the Complainant applied for job evaluation of her substantive post in November 2018. The Complainant stated that a letter was included with her application informing the job evaluation office that she was currently in a temporary higher appointment. The Complainant stated that this was not a requirement, i.e. to have an accompanying letter, and there was no section on the job evaluation form where it was asked if the applicant was in a temporary higher appointment. The job evaluation office subsequently wrote to the Complainant on 15th July 2019 asking her to clarify a number of questions including clarification of whether the application relates to her substantive or temporary post and length of time she had been on the temporary higher appointment. The Complainant checked with colleagues and found they had not been asked for similar information. The complainant stated that she discovered from the job evaluation office that a letter, not on headed paper had been sent with her application. The Complainant contends that she has been treated less favourably than many of her colleagues, whom she contends were in temporary higher appointments at the time of applying for their job evaluation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant was unsuccessful in seeking to have her substantive post evaluated as she was outside the time limits as set out in the job evaluation criteria. The rules of the job evaluation scheme permits applicants to be in an alternative role other than the post they are applying to have evaluated, but only for periods of less than two years. Management advised the Complainant that the cover email referencing her current temporary role was included to support her job evaluation application by way of advising that she was competent and carrying out the duties of the higher grade to a satisfactory standard. Subsequently a Senior Manager requested the job evaluation scheme to process the Complainant’s application as per the original request. The job evaluation scheme confirmed that on the basis of the Complainant being on a temporary appointment for three years the application was deemed ineligible. Following an appeal by the Complainant, Management offered her appointment to the next permanent post at the grade she was acting in and she was advised that this was the grade that she would have been offered had her substantive post been evaluated. The Complainant declined the offer of the permanent grade and referred the matter to the WRC. It is submitted that the claim must be rejected. |
Recommendation:
I note that at the time of her application for job evaluation, the Complainant was out of her substantive post for more than two years. She was therefore deemed ineligible as the job evaluation scheme deemed that “an applicant who is out of substantive post for up to but not exceeding two years retains their right to apply for job evaluation for his / her substantive post.” This clearly excludes the Complainant from having her substantive post evaluated, and I cannot recommend that the rules of the scheme be overturned in one instant case. The Complainant made a number of allegations in relation to others who she contended were in the same or similar position as herself. However, no direct evidence was presented to me to prove that point. I note the Complainant was aggrieved at the letter accompanying the application. I accept that this letter was sent in good faith. I also note the offer from the Respondent to the Complainant of a permanent assignment to her temporary grade. I recommend that the Complainant accepts this offer and that a line can therefore be drawn on this dispute, which has been difficult and stressful for the Complainant.
|
Dated: August 20th 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Job evaluation, eligibility, substantive grade. |