Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Caretaker

An Educational Facility

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

Niamh Ní Cheallaigh IBEC

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-00032074-001

08/11/2019

The Complainant is engaged as a Caretaker in the Respondent education facility. He believes his has been promoted to a grade and job for which he is not being appropriately paid.

The Complainant was represented by a Union official and I was provided with a comprehensive submission. I additionally heard the oral evidence of the Complainant.

The Respondent was represented by IBEC and I was provided with a submission and supporting documentation. I heard form a witness on behalf of the Respondent.

I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced. There is no doubt that the Complainant has been an excellent employee and is a much-valued member of the staff. Whilst a dispute has arisen, the interaction between the parties was cordial.

The complainant has been engaged in a caretaker-type role since 2007 with the present body which in 2007 was a VEC. In the early days the Complainant was engaged in the role of “workshop attendant” which role was performed in the woodwork section of this learning and skills facility and his job was to maintain and keep the workshop.

The Complainant believed he saw the position of “senior head caretaker” being advertised and applied for the position which would be a promotion. In fact, it now seems clear from the paperwork/advertisement provided that on the 23rd of November 2011 there was an advertised proposal to re-designate the position of one “Assistant Caretaker” to that of “Caretaker”. There was an invitation to in-house applicants though it was noted that as the VEC “…is bound by the moratorium there will be no increase in pay.”

The Complainant was successful in this interview process. I do note that there was some pre-history to this appointment but accept that the Respondent witnesses were not aware of this and in any event that narrative has no material effect on the outcome herein.

I was provided with a copy of the letter of 8th of February 2012 confirming the Complainant’s re-designation to the post of acting Caretaker. It is clear that there was to be no remunerative change because of the moratorium and that if and when a permanent caretaker post came up the Complainant would be expected to apply for the post as it would be the subject of public competition.

It is clear that the acting role was that of “caretaker” and not “senior caretaker”. However, there can be no doubt that the role was more complex than workshop attendant. The Complainant was now in charge of the smooth operation and running of the entire facility. Everything to do with facility, he said, came through him. He could have up to 14 staff referring to him between cleaning and Assistant caretakers. It is noted that on top of his Gross salary he ultimately also came to receive a Caretaker’s Allowance. This allowance came to be applied after the lifting of the moratorium. The Complainant believed he should have been paid at the rate of Senior Caretaker.

The Respondent gave evidence through their HR Manager PM. She explained that in 2011 there was no sanction to create new roles and that the re-designation was required because a senior caretaker had resigned in the facility. They needed to designate the functions and opted to seek to have an assistant moved up the grade in the manner outlined. There was never a promise, intention or indication that the role was anything other than “caretaker”. It was never the position of “Senior” or “Head” Caretaker.

PM conceded that there continues to be two “Head Caretakers” in the system but that these roles have been red circled and eventually will be retired out. At no point was the Complainant led to believe that such a role was there for him. There are only “Caretaker” roles in the system now.

My understanding is that with the lifting of the moratorium, the Complainant was paid the appropriate caretaker allowance since June of 2017. Before that the Complainant had been in receipt of the workshop attendant allowance and that the Complainant was paid the difference between the two allowances from 2013 to 2017.

In his evidence, the Complainant stated that he believed he was fulfilling the role of a Head or Senior Caretaker and that this title had been freely used by the principal in charge at the time of the promotion. The Complainant is adamant that his functions and tasks go well beyond the role of caretaker. He believes therefore that he should be paid commensurate with those red circled employees.

I find I have sympathy for the Complainant. He has at all times performed to the best of his ability and had genuinely held the belief that he was a Head Caretaker. I do accept that this belief was incorrect but do not understand why the paperwork and explanation made available to me at the hearing was not made available to the Complainant heretofore. I cannot place the Complainant on a salary scale that no longer exists. However, I do think the Complainant is entitled to a once off compensatory lump sum payment of €500.00 for the failure of the Employer to bring clarity to the issue.

I am additionally recommending (and I understand that the Employer is agreeable) that the Complainant be provided with the full extent of his job description. The Tasks, functions and expectations should be clearly provided to the Complainant.

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

CA-00032074-001

On balance, I accept that the dispute herein has some merit and I award the Complainant a lump sum payment of €500.00 for the failure of the Employer to bring clarity to his employment title in a timely manner. I recommend this sum be paid within six weeks of the issue of this recommendation.

I am additionally recommending that the Employer draft and provide the Employee with a comprehensive job description such that the Complainant understands the parameters of what is expected of him.