Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Manager

A Health Service provider

Representatives

FORSA

Industrial Relations Manager

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-00032592-001

29/11/2019

The employee believes she is wrongly graded and no process was made available to her to have this examined.

The complainant, Ms A, is graded at a General Manager Grade and works within the quality assurance division of the respondent. There are five members of this team who report to the National Director. Ms A manages two of the seven functions assigned to this team. As such Ms A has a high level of responsibility and decision making.   The managers of the other functions are graded as Assistant National Directors (AND). All four, and Ms A, report to the National Director. All of Ms A’s work, role, responsibilities and reporting relationships are directly comparable to the other four Heads of Function. When Ms A was appointed to one of her areas of responsibilities – Manager of National Appeals - this was a new role intended to replace various appeal services across the respondent’s employment and, given the economic climate at the time, was expected to operate within existing resources. From January 2016 Ms A was also assigned responsibility for managing Protected Disclosures.

Ms A raised the matter of her grading with the National Director who informed her that, while he sympathised with her, he could make no progress with HR in having the issue resolved. In May 2016 the National Director sought to have Ms A report to another AND who had achieved the regrading under a regularisation process. Ms A resisted this change. In February 2017 she agreed under protest to report to another AND.

Ms A did not meet the terms of the Circular 017/2013 Regularisation of acting posts in conjunction with the introduction of new arrangements for the short term filling of posts and the re-introduction of Senior Staff Nurse positions. Nor did she meet the terms of another appeals process. A job evaluation scheme for administrative grades was not open to her either.

Ms A utilised the respondent’s grievance procedure and her claims resulted in the following decisions;

Seeking Evaluation of the post: Management stated that the administration job evaluation scheme was not open to her grade. However there have been other one-off mechanisms used to evaluate staff which management failed to explore.

Rate of pay for the work provided. Management stated that it is clear that the grade one holds is in relation to appointment which incorporates a range of responsibilities, it is therefore not possible to isolate one of these responsibilities as an indicator of the relevant grade for the post. However, both of the responsibilities which Ms A held are of equal responsibility with the other AND’s.

Following an appeal the National Director stated that should there ever be a scheme appropriate to evaluate Ms A’s grade he would be happy to recommend her inclusion. He also stated that if such a scheme had not been introduced by 1 January 2019 he would further review with HR. On 3rd January he wrote to Forsa saying that there was no process available.   This was confirmed again in June 2019.

The dates and appointments outlined by the complainant are substantially correct. However, post evaluation relates to the duties associated with the post and not the qualifications of the post holder.

The complainant’s grade is not comprehended by the agreed job evaluation scheme for administrative grades which applies only to grades 3 to 6.

The commission for Public Service Appointments states that appointments should be made through a transparent, competitive recruitment process which restricts the respondent from appointing Ms A to the grade of AND. The complainant has had opportunity to compete for the grade of AND in 2015.

The complainant has reported to an AND for the majority of her time in the division which undermines her case for regrading.

The Public Services Agreement provided for transformation of how service is delivered and the changes referred to by the complainant fall under this heading. The Haddington Road Agreement provided for flexibility around traditional grade demarcations. It is clear that these agreements provide for rationalisation of roles and processes and that such rationalisation would not constitute grounds for upgrades.

The Respondent has argued that various national public sector agreements provided for flexibility around traditional grade demarcations and that these agreements provide for rationalisation of roles and processes and that such rationalisation would not constitute grounds for upgrades. However, the Haddington Road agreement also provided for proposals for grade rationalisation and restructuring of grades which, according to the respondent, was only done on an ad hoc basis.

I also note that this was a new post at the time the complainant was appointed to the role and therefore it was possible that it may not have been correctly graded.

In submission the respondent acknowledges that the complainant took on additional duties but her grade was not covered by the agreed job evaluation scheme for administrative grades 3 to 6 and therefore her post could not be evaluated. The existence of a job evaluation scheme for administrative grades 3 to 6 is an acknowledgement by the respondent of the need to ensure that posts are correctly graded and internally consistent. It is well established that internal comparisons in relation to pay are the primary consideration of employees and influence the level of the employee’s engagement with and commitment to the employment. It is therefore desirable that a mechanism be available for an employee to have their case objectively examined if they believe that it was wrongly graded from the outset.

I therefore recommend that a process be put in place for an independent examination of the role of the complainant regarding, but not limited to, the skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions, and that this role be compared to the other roles in the quality assurance division. In the event of the recommendation emerging from this process being that the post be upgraded then the terms of the Administration Job Evaluation agreement regarding the implications for the post holder be applied e.g. appointment without competition, effective date etc.

I recommend that a process be put in place for an independent examination of the role of the complainant regarding, but not limited to, the skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions, and that this role be compared to the other roles in the quality assurance division.

Grading. Job evaluation