Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Social Care Worker

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Shay Clinton Fórsa Trade Union

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-00031154-001

26/09/2019

The Complainant is at Basic Social Care Worker grade and is seeking regrading to a higher grade of Social Care Leader because of carrying out extra duties with the attached greater responsibilities. The Employer disputes that the Worker carries out duties that justify a higher grade. The Employer also submits that if the Worker’s claim succeeds, it would have knock-on effects for similar grades with the health provider.

The Worker has been employed as a Social Care Worker since 2006. In 2013 she was assigned to Adult Mental Health Services, but she found herself carrying out higher level duties in the community which she considers to be beyond her grade.

In 2016 she wrote to her line manager setting out the responsibilities of her post which she claimed were more aligned with the Social Care Leader Grade. A series of meetings took place and on July 25th, 2019, the Worker received a response from management which confirmed their agreement to upgrade the post. On foot of this confirmation, the Worker contacted the general manager of mental health services, and subsequently the human resources department but no progress was achieved.

The Worker submits that senior management have been benefitting from her performing higher duties over the years. She also claims that that there are no other social care staff within the employ of the provider and that her claim could not have a knock-on effect on other workers.

The Union, on behalf of the Worker, submits that minor claims are allowed under the public sector agreement (PSA) which covers the Employer. The Union submitted further correspondence after the hearing, which was copied to the other side. This consisted of   a copy of a recent WRC brokered deal with another public sector employer, to show that low value claims under the public sector agreement are allowed. Correspondence was also presented from a principal who stewards the implementation of the deal on behalf of the relevant Government Department, to show that minor claims are allowed.

The Employer refutes the case of the Worker that her position is unique in being the only social care worker within the wider ambit of the Employer’s mental health services. The Employer submits that there are 51 social care workers within its mental health services, and that this is a subset of a wider cohort comprising approximately 2020 social care workers that it currently employs.

The Employer argues that this hearing cannot be a job evaluation process. The Employer submits that the duties presently carried out by the Worker are those in line with her current grade. She has no supervisory duty over other staff. It asserts that there is no mechanism that infers an automatic entitlement to the pay of a social care leader. Furthermore, the Employer submits that local management cannot concede or authorise any claim for upgrade, without National Director approval. Therefore, there might have been agreement at local level that the Worker should be upgraded but the that does not translate into entitlement; the ultimate decision is made at national level, which is not forthcoming in this case.

The Employer also submits that this is a cost increasing claim and that the Union is precluded from lodging such claims during the currency of the present PSA. On the further correspondence of the Union, the Employer submits that the letter from the Department excludes claims of remuneration, so this claim must also be excluded. It also refutes the Union position that the WRC agreement presented was relevant in this case, in that the brokered deal referred to had agreement on both sides on the merits of the regrading claim, in contrast to this claim.

I agree with the Employer in its position that the role of the Adjudicator is not one of a job evaluator who ultimately decides that the Worker should be upgraded, after a job evaluation process. There is no doubt that the Worker has a challenging position in a job that is nuanced and complex in contrast to one that can be evaluated in a conventional workplace. However, there are certain observations that I can make about the submission of the Worker. She gave a long list of what can only be described as additional duties like fund raising and setting up community support services. She has attended conferences and information days and has generally gone out into the community. I note that the Employer does not specifically address these claims, nor   give context to how they conform to her daily role as a social care worker. Neither did the Employer give any detail of the role assigned to social care workers in its employment.

I believe also that there was a legitimate expectation created by local management which led the Worker to believe that she would be upgraded. The Employer states that no permission was given to this expectancy at national level. I can only find that local management, given their senior positions, didn’t behave in a trite way when supporting the Worker and that instead it came from observation of the duties the worker was performing.

The Employer concedes that there are regrading claims and job evaluations currently in process within the health provider on a national basis therefore I cannot accept the position that regrading claims are outside the ambit of the PSA.

Having considered all the evidence in this dispute, I am recommending that the employer should set up a job evaluation process by a competent, independent expert(s) to determine if the Worker, in this dispute, can be justifiably regraded to that of a Social Care Leader. This process should be completed within two months of receipt of this recommendation. If the outcome of this process should be that the Worker is upgraded then retrospection of pay, pension and any other service entitlement should be backdated to January 1st, 2019. This process or its outcome, must be considered unique, and strictly must not be cited for any knock-on claims for workers in the social care grade, or any other grade, with this employer, or any other employer within the health sector.  

Having considered all submissions in this dispute, I am recommending that the Employer should set up a job evaluation process by a competent, independent person(s) to determine if the Worker in this dispute should be justifiably regraded to that of Social Care Leader. This process should be completed within two months of receipt of this recommendation. If the outcome of this process should be that the Worker is upgraded then retrospection of pay, pension and any other service entitlement should be backdated to January 1st, 2019. This process or its outcome, must be considered unique, and strictly should not be cited for any knock-on claims for workers in the social care grade, or any other grade, with this employer, or any other employer within the health sector.

Regrading claim