Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Assistant National Director

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Irish Medical Organisation

none 

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-00034716-001

18/02/2020

The worker says that since 2016 he has taken on roles for extra responsibility but, despite having made requests, he has received no increase in Grade or allowance to recognise the additional responsibility. The employer recommended the worker receive an allowance for the worker from the time he covered for the National Director in 2016 but this was not approved.

I have fully considered the detailed written submissions made by both parties and I summarise these, together with what was put to me at the hearing, below.

The worker is employed at a senior level as an Assistant National Director specialist in Public Health Medicine since 2005. In May 2016 he was asked to take on a Director role, in addition to his existing duties and he filled this role until July 2019. This role now attracts an allowance of €50,000. As well as this significant role, the worker has also taken on many other responsibilities on top of his original role. Despite the extra responsibilities the employer has never sought to review the worker’s grade. The worker has raised the issue of his grading and remuneration many times. In August 2019 the employer did put a business case to the Government Department, but no progress has been made that recognises the additional responsibilities taken on by the employer.

The employer acknowledges the extra workload taken on by the worker for the period May 2016 until July 2019 when he took responsibility for the Director role. This was reflected in the business case they put forward to the Government Department in August 2019, which recommended payment of an allowance from June 2018 and also expressed a preference that it should be backdated to May 2016. However, sanction was not given by the Department. Furthermore, approval was not obtained from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER). They concluded the Allowance sought was historically only paid to those at Consultant level. They agreed to apply the allowance to a permanent appointee to the Director role which the worker covered but would not approve its payment to someone covering the role.

In these circumstances the employer requests the current position is upheld.

I find that the worker has taken on extra responsibilities when asked to do so by the employer. These responsibilities are at a very high level and the worker is clearly very highly regarded by the employer. I see the evidence of this in the business case put forward in September 2019. Also, the value of these additional responsibilities in relation to the Director role he covered from May 2016 until July 2019 is evidenced by the approval of the Allowance of €50,000 for the competition to fill the role permanently. However, DPER said the allowance was only payable to a permanent post holder.

I understand this allowance was, historically, only paid to those at Consultant level, although this has changed in recent times. I am also aware of discussions at a national level which are considering senior doctors in the Public Health area being given Consultant status.

I am considering the worker’s claim in relation to the additional responsibilities he has taken on, particularly from May 2016 until July 2019. The worker has also asked me to look at his position from July 2019 forwards. Assessing roles and responsibilities, particularly in such a senior role, is complex and complicated. The worked accepted his grading when he started in it in 2005. Since then he has clearly shown a high degree of flexibility and commitment to the role in accepting additional tasks and roles. This is usually expected at a high level in organisations, in both the public and private sectors. I am not in a position to carry out a full review of the role. However, I am very cognisant of the business case put forward on the worker’s behalf by the employer. In this they endorsed the payment of the Allowance to the worker from the time it was approved to be applied to the Director role he had covered. Also, they expressed a preference that this be back dated to May 2016 but were aware it would only be considered from the date it was applied to the role; June 2018. However, payment of the Allowance was not sanctioned as DPER said it was only applicable to a permanent appointment to the role and not to an “interim post holder”. They gave no reason for this decision.

Taking all the circumstances of this worker’s case into account I recommend that the Clinical Director Allowance (from October 2020 €50,000 but previously €46,000) be applied to the worker from May 2016 for the period he covered the Director role until July 2019. I further recommend that the payment of this allowance be continued thereafter on an ongoing basis, in recognition of the additional responsibilities the worker continues to undertake. The allowance should be paid at least until the implementation of whatever is the conclusion of the current discussions about the applicability of Consultant status to senior doctors in Public Health. At that time, I recommend the employer fully reviews the worker’s role and ensures he is graded and rewarded appropriately.

For the reasons given above I recommend that the Clinical Director Allowance (from October 2020 €50,000 but previously €46,000) be applied to the worker from May 2016 for the period he covered the National Director role until July 2019. I also recommend that the payment of this allowance be continued thereafter on an ongoing basis, in recognition of the additional responsibilities the worker continues to undertake. The allowance should be paid at least until the implementation of whatever is the conclusion of the current discussions about the applicability of Consultant status to senior doctors in Public Health. At that time, I recommend the employer fully reviews the worker’s role and ensures he is graded and rewarded appropriately.

These recommendations are made in relation to and in recognition of the individual and particular circumstances of the worker’s situation and should not be taken to have any implications for anyone else.

Key Words: Industrial Relations Acts – additional responsibilities