Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Human Resources Officer

A Charitable Organisation

Representatives

SIPTU

Ibec

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00029336-001

27/06/2019

The Worker has been employed by the Employer as a Human Resources Officer since 22 September, 2009. The Worker’s post was graded at Grade V on the commencement of her employment. The Worker contends that her role has evolved over the last number of years and consequently the work which she undertakes is commensurate to a Grade VI or Grade VII post within the organisation. This dispute relates to a claim by the Worker that her post should be remunerated at the level of a Grade VI and she has sought to have this matter adjudicated upon in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Worker made the following submissions in support of her position in relation to this dispute:

·         The Worker’s role has evolved over the period of her employment and she has assumed greater responsibility which she considers should be reflected in her pay.

·         The Worker disputes that the claim amounts to a cost increasing claim and argues that she is only seeking to be paid at the appropriate level commensurate to the level of her existing post. She contends that similar HR Officer posts within the organisation which are based in other geographical locations are graded at either Grade VI or Grade VI.

·         The Worker contends that she is the lowest paid HR Officer within the organisation and is seeking pay parity with other HR Officers with similar service and levels of responsibility within the organisation.

·         The Worker has exhausted all internal procedures and offered an independent job evaluation that was not accepted by the Employer.

·         The Worker is seeking to be placed on the Grade VI salary scale with immediate effect and have retrospection of pay awarded.

The Employer made the following submissions in support of its position in relation to this dispute:

·         The Worker is currently employed at Grade V in accordance with the terms of her contract of employment and is seeking to have her post regraded to Grade VII.

·         The Worker has applied for an evaluation of her role by way of an established nationally agreed Job Evaluation Scheme and that process is currently ongoing.

·         The Employer does not dispute that the duties and responsibilities which the Worker is currently undertaking in her post are commensurate to those of a Grade VI post within the organisation.

·         The Employer contends that any decision in relation to the Worker’s application for a regarding of her post to Grade VII should be considered in the context of the job evaluation scheme and that this process must be allowed to come to a natural conclusion.

This dispute was referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and concerns a claim by the Worker for parity of pay with other HR Officers with similar service and levels of responsibility within the organisation.

I have carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions made by the parties in relation to this dispute.

It was common case that Worker has been employed by the Employer as a HR Officer for the duration of her employment and that she is remunerated in accordance with the Grade V salary scale. The Worker contends that her role has evolved during her employment and that she is currently undertaking duties and responsibilities which are commensurate to a Grade VI or Grade VII post within the organisation. The Worker further contends that the HR Officer posts in other geographical locations, which are commensurate to her post in terms of levels of duties and responsibility, are graded at either Grade VI or Grade VII.

It was common case that the Worker has applied for an evaluation of her post by way of a nationally agreed Job Evaluation Scheme and that this process has not yet been concluded. The Worker is seeking to have her post upgraded to a Grade VII post through the established Job Evaluation Scheme. I note that there was consensus between the parties that the nationally agreed Job Evaluation Scheme is the appropriate mechanism to process the Worker’s application for an upgrade of her post to Grade VII. I would concur with the parties’ position on this matter. I am satisfied that it would not be appropriate for me to make any recommendation in relation to the Worker’s claim for a regrading of her post to Grade VII as this matter is currently being considered within the confines of the nationally agreed Job Evaluation Scheme.

However, notwithstanding the foregoing, I note that the Employer does not dispute that the duties and responsibilities which the Worker has been undertaking in her post as a HR Officer are commensurate to those of a Grade VI post within the organisation. Having regard to the parties’ consensus on this matter, I find that the Worker should be remunerated at the appropriate point on the Grade VI salary scale within the organisation with immediate effect. I also find that the Employer should make a once-off payment of €10,000 to the Worker for retrospective recognition of the period that she has undertaken the additional duties and responsibility commensurate to a Grade VI post.

I recommend that the Worker should be remunerated at the appropriate point on the Grade VI pay-scale having regard to the length of her service with the organisation with effect from the date of this recommendation. I also recommend that the Employer should make a once-off payment of €10,000 to the Worker for retrospective recognition of the period that she has undertaken the additional duties and responsibility commensurate to a Grade VI post.

Industrial Relations Act, 1969 – Section 13 – Trade Dispute – Regrading - Job Evaluation Scheme - Retrospection