ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028629

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Engineering Safety Executive	A Transport Service

Representatives

Dave Curran SIPTU

Complaint(s):

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-00037490-001	17/06/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/05/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance withSection 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The case concerns a worker who has worked with the employer since 2002. A dispute has arisen over the alleged failure of the employer to re-grade the worker as per agreed procedures. At the outset of the hearing the matter of equality was discussed. It was agreed by the parties that equality was not at issue in the case.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The employer provided a detailed written submission.

The employer submits that or two reasons no compensation or retrospection payments should apply in this case. The first is the circumstances in which the grade was awarded to the worker, i.e., the grade was not actually awarded in the normal manner of the regrading process. The second is that there are a body of workers in the company in identical circumstances to this worker and any concession in this case will set a precedent that could represent an immediate cost to the company in excess of €150,000.

By way of background the employer submits that there are two ways that a worker can be re-graded to a higher pay grade. The first is through the worker applying for a re-grading review and a higher grade being approved following the outcome of the process. The second is that the department the worker works in apply through a business case for them to be regraded on the basis of there being significant changes to their role, i.e., the worker or workers have taken on significant additional responsibilities.

On 3 March 2016, the worker applied for a re-grading of her role. The company has an established process that applies for reviewing grades following guidelines, the X plan. In 2012 the company made a decision that no re-gradings would be processed until further notice due to the financial circumstances of the company. Applications were accepted but not processed.

In 2018 the outstanding re-grading applications were processed but no decisions were issued to the workers. It was then decided that all the outstanding decisions would be issued in Quarter 2 of 2019 and that the re-gradings would apply on a forward basis only. 27 workers including the complainant worker were included in business cases to be regraded to a higher pay scale. The employer has not paid any of these employees compensation for any delay in their new grade being applied. Furthermore, the employer submits, it has never paid compensation of this nature since the introduction of the re-grading process.

In July 2018, a regrading review was carried out by the HR Services Manager, which found that the worker’s role was appropriately graded at the level of Executive Grade B. However, the worker’s manager made strong representations to the HR Manager stating that the worker had taken on extra responsibilities. On foot of this a number of re-grading reviews were undertaken and in March 2019, it was agreed that the business would recommend and the worker would be offered an Executive Grade C.

The employers submits that this re-grading process differs considerably from others due to the intervention of the worker’s manager.

In April 2019, the full set of re-grading business cases went to the CEO. The worker was included in the list. In May 2019, the worker signed a letter of acceptance albeit stating that she would be pursuing a claim for retrospection.

Findings and Conclusions:

The employer submits that the Adjudicator is precluded from hearing this complaint under S.13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 which states:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner”.

The employer argues that the issue in dispute is in relation to pay and conditions for a body of workers.

Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provides a statutory restriction on the types of cases Adjudicators may hear. They may not investigate disputes connected with rates of pay, hours or times of work or annual holidays of a body of workers. In this case I find that although the worker has been treated differently than her colleagues, this is in essence a collective dispute. If I were to find in her favour I believe there would be a stream of follow-on claims.

I also refer to the employer’s own submission where they state that this case was already subject of an Adjudication Hearing; the matter was referred back to local level while attempts were being made at the local level to resolve the matter collectively.

In all the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the dispute before me involves issues related to concerns of a body of workers. It is a claim which, if conceded, could potentially have broader implications for others.

Notwithstanding the above, it would seem to me that there have been unacceptable delays in getting this issue resolved. It behoves the employer to get the matter sorted out sooner rather than later.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

On the basis of the submission made by the parties, and having considered the provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts, I have decided that the issue before me is by its nature a collective issue and, therefore, I have no jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

Dated: 11th August 2021