Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Head of Internal Audit

Transport Agency

Representatives

SIPTU

McCann Fitzgerald

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-00035649-001

09/04/2020

The worker says he is not properly graded and, having exhausted internal procedures, requests a proper assessment is made of his role, duties and responsibilities. The employer says the role was properly graded when the worker accepted it in 2015 and the internal grievance procedure showed no reason for the post to be regraded or evaluated by an external investigator.

The worker was employed by a semi-state agency which merged with another agency in 2015. When the merger took place, he applied for the role of Head of Internal Audit, which was graded at Assistant Principal level. He was successful and commenced in August 2015. Despite making enquiries he was given no information as to how this grading was arrived at. The previous Head of Audit in the agency the employer worked for before the merger was graded at Principal Officer level. When he took up the role, he was soon expected to carry out duties that were not in the job specification, but which had been undertaken by the previous Head of Audit; Financial Control activities and overseeing EU grant claims. These new duties account for 20 – 25% of the worker’s current role.

He was unsuccessful in addressing his grievance through informal discussion. He raised a formal grievance in April 2018 setting out in some detail his contention the post was wrongly graded and requested a job evaluation. This was rejected and he says not all points he raised were considered, some conclusions were incorrect, and others appeared to be based on undisclosed interviews. He appealed the decision and highlighted the lack of information as to how the AP grade was reached. Also, there was a lack of transparency in the investigation.

The worker contends that his role should be graded at Principal Officer. He wants an independent external evaluation to be carried out.

The employer contends the role was approved at AP level in advance of the merger. The worker applied for and was successful in an open competition for the post at that level.

Almost three years later he raised a grievance about the grade of the role which was not upheld. Also, his appeal was not upheld. In relations to tasks cited by the worker that he says were undertaken by the previous Head of Audit the employer says the Financial Control functions had historically been carried out by less senior staff. The EU grant claims work has substantially reduced compared with levels in 2013 because of dramatic decreases in levels of EU funding.

The employer also says the previous Head of Audit is not a suitable post to compare with. It had been vacant since 2010 and was not filled prior to the merger. Key tasks were redistributed to others, including the Director of Business Services.

The employer is satisfied the role undertaken by the worker was correctly graded at the time he was appointed and there have not been significant changes to the role requiring it to be re-graded, or even independently assessed.

I have summarised the main points made by both parties above and I acknowledge the written submissions and oral evidence covered a lot of detail which I have also taken into account in considering this dispute

The worker contends the initial grading of the post was incorrect, whilst the employer says it was correctly assessed and the complainant chose to apply for the post at the grade of Assistant Principal. The worker further contends that since taking up the post he has taken on duties not included in the original job specification which had previously been carried out by someone at a higher grade. The employer contends these tasks had either been carried out by someone at a lower grade or substantially reduced in the last few years because of a reduction in finding.

I have considered all the information provided and I can see no glaring anomalies either, in the initial grading of the worker’s post or, in the internal processes which dealt with the worker’s grievance, which would lead me to recommend either an upgrade of the post or that an independent review should be undertaken.

It was clear at the hearing that the worker has an honestly held opinion that he should be at a higher grade. Alongside this view, he continues to carry out a very good job and is held in high regard by the employer. In these circumstances, and in order to maintain good working relations, I recommend that the parties work together to consider if there are additional tasks that could be undertaken by the worker which would warrant a higher grade or some form of allowance. If this is not possible then the employer should do all it can to help the worker’s development, perhaps through mentoring and training, that will assist him in looking for promotion in the organisation.

For the reasons stated above I recommend that the parties work together to consider if there are additional tasks that could be undertaken by the worker which would warrant a higher grade or some form of allowance. If this is not possible then the employer should do all it can to help the worker’s development, perhaps through mentoring and training, that will assist him in looking for promotion in the organisation.

Industrial Relations grading