Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Maintenance Officer

A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

SIPTU

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-00032760-001

05/12/2019

The Worker was employed as a Grade VI Maintenance Officer with the Employer until 1 November 2019 when he was upgraded to Grade VII. He said that his role covers both electrical and mechanical services at location A.

He said that Maintenance Officers at two other locations that he knows of, which are similar size locations to where he works, are paid at Grade VII and are providing only one of the services either electrical or mechanical.

The Worker said that the Employer advertised Maintenance Officer posts for two locations in 2017 at Grade VII, which indicated that the job had acquired an enhanced grade, which should have also applied to other job holders, doing the same work, including him at location A.

The Worker said that he tried to have this addressed by local management. However, the Employer refused to deal with the claim, when the disparity came to light, and insisted that the only option was via a Job Evaluation Scheme.

The Worker had no choice but to apply for the Job Evaluation Scheme as a means for an upgrade. Following assessment, the job was deemed suitable to be upgraded to Grade VII. However, the Worker said retrospective payments for the time he was doing the Grade VII post while only being paid at Grade VI was not addressed. This has knock on implications for his pension. He said that he believes he has been incorrectly paid for many years. He said he was upgraded from 1 November 2019 and placed on the top of the scale.

The Worker said that taking into consideration the fact that his role has been regraded to reflect the duties he carries out, which are in line with a Grade VII post, but also include both the mechanical and electrical work, he asked that the upgrade would apply earlier taking into account the work he has been doing in that time.

The Employer said that the Worker is employed as a Maintenance Officer, on a permanent, whole time contract. His place of work is location A. The Worker was employed as a permanent grade VI in this role, since November 2007 following an upgrade of the position.

The Employer said that on 10 February 2019 the Worker’s trade union representative, on behalf of the Worker first made contact with the HR Manager, seeking re-grading of his role. The Worker was advised that the only mechanism available to address claims for re-grading, within the administration grades, was through the Job Evaluation Scheme. The Worker did not accept this and wrote again in March 2019, looking for an alternative.

The Employer said that the claim always came under the scope of the Job Evaluation Scheme and for the Worker to claim otherwise is entirely incorrect. The Job Evaluation Scheme is the only mechanism available to staff to have their roles and responsibilities evaluated. The Employer said that it is therefore incorrect for the Worker to state that it refused to deal with him, he was told to apply through the job evaluation scheme and that remains correct and factual to this day. Following on from the correspondence in March 2019, local meetings were held which did not come to a resolution as it was again confirmed that the only available mechanism pertaining to upgrade claims is through the Job Evaluation Scheme.

The Employer said that once the Worker completed the job evaluation form it was processed in a speedy timeframe. The Worker has been appointed as a Grade VII Maintenance Officer effective from 01/11/2019 with back pay arrears, as per the rules of the scheme, to the date of appointment.

The Employer said retrospection cannot be considered; the terms of Job Evaluation Scheme do not provide for it. To award retrospection would be outside the nationally agreed terms of the evaluation processes, which was agreed between the Employer and the Unions and would undermine all previous positive evaluation decisions. The Employer said that the Worker is now seeking more favourable treatment.

The Employer said that in view that the claim lodged by the Worker's union, not only is outside of the agreed rules of the Job Evaluation Scheme but is also cost increasing and is therefore precluded under the Public Service Stability Agreement.

Having heard the submissions from both sides I am satisfied that the Worker was correct to have his position assessed after he became aware that similar Maintenance Officer positions were advertised in other locations at grade VII.

I note that he wanted a local arrangement to have his position regraded and to be paid retrospectively from 2017 and was not satisfied that he had to go through the Job Evaluation Scheme.

I note that the Employer said that the Job Evaluation Scheme was the official scheme to cater for such reviews of grade positions. This is the only mechanism available and by applying the scheme correctly he is not entitled to retrospection. It said that retrospection cannot be considered as this is outside the nationally agreed terms of the Clerical Administration Job Evaluation Processes.

I note that when the Worker noticed the difference in grade with his fellow maintenance workers at other locations and he sought his position to be considered for upgrade that this application was dealt with without delay and he was successful in that upgrade.

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.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I find that the dispute is not well founded.

Industrial Relations Acts - Job Evaluation – scheme – re-graded