ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027055
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Clerical Worker | Disability Support Services |
Representatives | Andrea Cleere SIPTU | Muireann McEnery Ibec |
Complaint:
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-00034619-001 | 13/02/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/03/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Worker complains that the Employer interfered with the Job Evaluation process which resulted in the denial of a grade to her which had been previously awarded by the scheme. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Worker submits that following a long drawn out process which goes back a number of years, which involved a recommendation from a Rights Commissioner that the Employer should facilitate the Worker with access to the Job Evaluation Scheme, the Worker finally got to have her grade processed through Job Evaluation. The outcome, which came in January 2019 was that she be upgraded from a Grade 4 to Grade 6. It is submitted that the Employer then contacted the Job Evaluation Scheme urgently to have the decision overturned and instead award the Worker a Grade 5. The Job Evaluation scheme then reassessed the grade and awarded a Grade 5. It is argued that this goes against the rules of the scheme which state inter alia that the decision of the scheme is not open to appeal and is not open to review, save where there is a procedural deficit. It is submitted that by interfering in the process the Employer has acted wrongly and has deprived the Worker from increased earnings. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Worker holds a position in Payroll, and there are two other colleagues in the same type of job. It is argued that the Job Evaluation scheme is an independent process administered by the HSE. When the Worker applied, both the Employer and she applied to be regraded to Grade 5. It is submitted that when Grade 6 was the outcome, it was recognised that this was an error. When the outcome was received the Employer contacted the HSE, who would not put it in writing that an error had been made. The Grade was then confirmed as Grade 5. It is submitted that the Employer was not interfering in the process, was simply pointing out to the HSE the error, and that the Worker in this case could not be awarded a higher grade than her colleagues doing the same job. It is further submitted that collaboration between Employer and Employee is a key component to the scheme. |
Recommendation:
I note the long history here where the Worker has endeavoured over a period of some years to have access to the Job Evaluation scheme. The post was then sent for job evaluation and the Employer’s evidence is that both parties sought a Grade 5. I note there is a contended error by the scheme and that no one would confirm that in written form. This is unsatisfactory especially for the Worker who having been told she was getting a Grade 6 was then naturally disappointed to have it reduced to a Grade 5. However, as the Employer has advised, two other colleagues are carrying out essentially the same tasks. I cannot recommend that the Worker in this instant case be upgraded, as to so recommend would have repercussive effects. I believe that the flaw of not providing written confirmation of the error merits some compensation for the Worker. In order to draw a line under this dispute, I recommend that the Worker accept that the matter is closed and that the Employer offer her a compensatory sum of €2,000 in settlement of her dispute.
Dated: 19th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Job Evaluation.