Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Adult & Continuing Education Assistant

A Third Level Institution

Representatives

Paul Hardy SIPTU

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-00026947-001

11/03/2019

The worker submits that she is currently employed as an Adult & Continuing Education Assistant having been permanently employed by the employer since 29th of March 2006.    The current dispute concerns the worker’s claim that she is incorrectly graded for the work she carries out.   The worker is currently remunerated on the Administrative Grade 3 salary scale and is deemed not to be a member of the academic staff. The worker referred her dispute to the WRC on the 11th of March 2019 and is seeking that the post she occupies be reviewed by a suitably qualified person to determine the appropriate grade of her post.

The worker contends that she is incorrectly graded and has been unable to pursue her grievance at local level as there is no process by which her concerns can be addressed.   The worker submits that she is demonstrably conducting work appropriate to the academic grade of lecturer or at any rate work inappropriate to the grade of Administrative Grade 3.    

The Worker submits that the Labour Court held in Clare County Council v A Worker LCR21963 (April 2019) that ‘[t]he Court does not have the capacity, nor is it the function of the Court, to conduct a grading evaluation at any time.’ The Worker does not ask the Adjudication Officer to conduct any such exercise.

The Worker contends, that restrictions on the conducting of job evaluation exercises by the Employer imposed by government departments are not intended to nor can reasonably justify the continued remuneration of a worker at the wrong rate of pay. The worker also submits that the Labour Court has consistently taken the position that the existence of a collective agreement precluding cost-increasing claims during its life should not be a bar to payment of the appropriate rate for the job e.g. HSE West & A Worker AD1242 (May 2012).

The worker is seeking a recommendation that a review of her current role be carried out by a suitably qualified person to determine the appropriate grade of her post.

The employer submits that the workers post which is analogous to that of Administrative Assistant Grade 3 differs significantly from that of the Lecturer grade and states that the role she was engaged to do was not that of a Lecturer.   The employer goes on to state that the role of University Lecturer is an appointment that is made by order of University statute.  

The employer further contends that the claim is a cost increasing claim which under the Public Service Agreement is outside of the scope of the University at this time.   The employer states that given the claim is a de facto pay claim and has collective implications, it should not be processed as an individual grievance/dispute through the adjudication services of the WRC.   The employer confirmed that it has received a number of regrading referrals and although there is no job evaluation scheme currently in place, it has committed to undertake a review on the issues raised.

I note the employer’s position that there are a number of similar regrading referrals in place and that a review process is currently underway.

The Trade Union has sought that, a review of the complainant’s current role be carried out by a suitably qualified person to determine the appropriate grade of her post.

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 states as follows: -

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a Rights Commissioner.

The worker submits that the Labour Court has consistently taken the position that the existence of a collective agreement precluding cost-increasing claims during its life should not be a bar to payment of the appropriate rate for the job e.g. HSE West & A Worker AD1242 (May 2012).

On the basis of the provisions of the legislation and the specific nature of the worker’s claim, I find it fair and reasonable that the worker’s role be included in the review process currently underway to determine the appropriate grade of her post.

In all of the circumstances of this dispute and having considered the submissions of both parties, I recommend that the Employer includes the Worker in the ongoing review by a suitably qualified person with a view to carrying out an evaluation to determine the appropriate grade of her post.