LCR22236

1.An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no. ADJ-00025721.

BACKGROUND:

2.This case is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation by the Worker. On the 15 May 2020 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

• “I am satisfied that the Employer’s position in relation to the evaluation of grades and possible upgrades is by the Clerical Administration Job Evaluation Processes and had the Worker brought his regrading application earlier he may have been successful. However, the terms of the scheme do not allow for retrospection. Unfortunately, the Worker had not been aware of the other maintenance officers’ grades and contracts across the Employer’s organisation and he feels that he has missed out. However, the integrity of the scheme must be adhered to and I have heard that they did not have another mechanism available to them and applied the Job Evaluation Processes correctly.
  
  I find that the dispute is not well founded.

The Worker’s Union in their submission to the Court stated that the Worker became aware in 2019 that a role similar to his was being paid at a higher rate in two other locations. It was his understanding that the higher rate had been in effect since 2017 and he was seeking to have that rate of pay applied to his post from that date. The Union wrote to the Employer in February 2019 highlighting the pay anomaly.

The Employer when they were made aware of the anomaly advised the Union that the only avenue to address the disparity was through the job evaluation scheme.

The Worker reluctantly engaged with that scheme and in line with the scheme was placed on the higher scale with effect from the 1^stNovember 2019 the date the upgrade was approved through the job evaluation scheme.

It is the Union’s submission that the jobs in the other locations had not been upgraded through the scheme and that the Worker was disadvantaged by having to go through the scheme and in particular would be disadvantaged in terms of his pension as he was considering retiring in the near future.

The Employers position was that while the other posts may have been upgraded without going through job evaluation they were filled by open competition, unlike the Worker’s post where he would get the benefit of the post being upgraded.

In terms of the Worker’s pension the Employer was not in a position at the hearing to say whether or not anything could be done in respect of his pension and advised they would have to seek guidance in relation to same.

It is the Court’s understanding that one of the key concerns of the Worker is that he will not receive the full benefit of the increase in his pension.

The Court having listened carefully to both sides recommends that the parties return to local discussion and engage in relation to the pension issue. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement in relation to same within three months of the date of the recommendation the parties can return to the Court for a final Decision.

The Decision of the Adjudication officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so Decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CR	______________________
28 July, 2020.	Deputy Chairman