Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A doctor

A public body

Representatives

Irish Medical Organisation

Corporate Employee Relations Representative

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00039943-001

21/09/2020

The worker seeks to be placed on a different pay scale as he had been placed on a defunct pay scale. The employer outlined that it has sought to address the broad issue and submits that this dispute relates to the rates of pay of a body of workers.

The worker’s employment started in October 2019 in a named specialty. While consultant positions in this specialty required the same training and equivalent accreditation, through an historical quirk, senior workers in this specialty did not automatically get consultant status. Also, there had not been a national standardisation and so, regional variations occurred.

The trade union outlined that a 4-point scale had been replaced by a nine-point scale, pursuant to a collective agreement.  The preceding 4-point scale, which dated from 2012, had been removed and the workers on this scale transitioned across.

On appointment, the worker was placed on the 2012 scale, even though this had been defunct for five years. The worker outlined that he should be moved to the agreed, new pay scale, which is to come into effect and that he should be transitioned across on the same basis as others.

The worker outlined that there were other staff on the wrong scale, but that the worker was the only person to have raised this. It was outlined that the employer has not set up a regularisation process.

The worker emphasized the importance of the specialty, in particular in the context of the pandemic. It was outlined that there had been no engagement to address the broader issue in any meaningful way. There had been no attempt to implement a named report. The national pay agreements were only belatedly applied to the old scale, such was the out of date nature of the scale.

The worker outlined that the employer treated him like a consultant when it suited them, but not when it came to getting him off the old scale.

The employer submitted that this dispute related to the rates of pay of a body of workers and therefore excluded by section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act. It followed that a recommendation should not be issued in respect of this individual dispute.

It was submitted that the dispute related to the rates of pay and pay scales for workers of a particular specialty. There had been some engagement and there were 10 workers on the disputed, old four-point scale.

It was submitted that this individual claim was premature and that ultimately it was a matter for the line Department and the Department of Public Expenditure. It was outlined that an updated business case has been submitted to the line Department and will be subject to their process. This will seek sanction for the revised pay scale.

It was outlined that the employer considered it premature to hold a conciliation conference, prior to the completion of the process with the line Department.

In line with the September 2020 correspondence, the employer was of the view that there was an error in applying the four-point scale and this fell between it and the line Department. It remained the default grade for the specialty. Consultants recruited in 2017 and 2018 were made to the four-point scale and 7 of the 8 appointed have since moved to other roles. It outlined that the scale was uncompetitive.

It was submitted that pay scales are a collective matter and require a collective process. There would be groups with outstanding processes, and they should be addressed collectively. Sanction would also be required.

It was submitted that this category of workers did not automatically become a consultant, as the post was not recognized as a consultant post. The specialty developed in a haphazard way across the former regional structures and voluntary bodies. There was ad hoc development and different contracts were used. No formal grade was ever approved, and it was not understood that the nine-point scale would apply to the specialty.

It was submitted that a formal business case has very recently been submitted and this would hopefully lead to a resolution. It was envisaged it would take several months and the issue was identified as an outstanding industrial relations issue requiring sectoral bargaining.

This adjudication took place against the background of a process initiated by the employer, which, if successful, would address the kernel of this dispute. The worker submits that he is on a defunct pay scale; the employer outlined that it has made a business case to address the broad issue.

The worker outlines that he is able to pursue this issue as a trade dispute pursuant to section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act. The employer outlines that the dispute relates to the rate of pay of a body of workers and that a recommendation could not be issued in the case.

I note the parties’ submissions regarding whether a recommendation can issue in this case and whether it relates to the rate of pay of a body of workers.

While I note these submissions, the prudent course at this stage is not to resolve this difference. This is the prudent course as, since the dispute was lodged, a new process was initiated by the employer. This may resolve the issue. If the matter is not resolved to the worker’s satisfaction, a fresh adjudication referral can be made.

For clarity, I have not made any findings in respect of whether the dispute is a trade dispute pursuant to section 13(2) or excluded as it relates to the rate of pay of a body of workers. Given that the process has commenced with the line Department, it is preferable not to make a recommendation on this specific adjudication referral.

CA-00039943-001

For the above reasons and pending the ongoing process, I do not make a recommendation in respect of this dispute.

Industrial Relations Act / section 13(2) / body of workers