Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Porter

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Gerard Kennedy, SIPTU

 HR

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-00038782-001

17/07/2020

The Worker commenced his employment with the Employer in 2007. He referred a dispute to the Director General of the WRC claiming that he is incorrectly graded for pay purposes.

SIPTU on behalf of the Worker submits as follows:

The Worker commenced his employment with the Employer in 2007 on a series of fixed term contracts as a minibus driver. His contract was changed to a contract of indefinite duration in 2011. In 2014 the Worker was reassigned to the role of a porter in the Maintenance Department and is currently being remunerated at that grade which is a band 4 grade attracting an annual salary of €33,038. However, the duties and responsibilities attached to the role do not equate in any way to the norms of a role undertaken by a porter on a band 4 rate of pay. In essence, the Worker has full responsibility for the management and control of stock within the Maintenance Department. Included in these duties are the following:

1.      The ordering of all stock associated with the Maintenance Department

2.      The maintenance of all stock inventory with the value in excess of €500,000

3.      The generation of all purchase orders within the Department

4.      The undertaking of all stock taking checks within the Department

5.      Full responsibility for goods in and good out

6.      Management of PPE for the maintenance staff

7.      Management of the requirements of the VAT reversable tax (for which he has received appropriate training)

8.      Management of carbon credits with the value of over €400,000 per annum

9.      The maintenance of all goods received dockets and GRN numbers for the processing and generation of payment

The vast bulk of the Worker’s duties are office based and require a high degree of computer literacy. 

 In response to the grievance raised on the Worker’s behalf the Employer wrote to SIPTU to advise that the issue had been passed through the line management structure to receive instructions as to how the matter could be progressed. However, following a review by HR, the Worker was advised that there were no internal options available that would resolve his grievance resulting in the Worker’s request to proceed with the referral to the WRC.

SIPTU submits that it is obvious that the Worker has been assigned, and is carrying out, duties that are well beyond the scope of a porter. The duties carry a high level of responsibility and require a full and in-depth knowledge of stock management with the associated necessary computer skills. This type of role would normally be undertaken by Clerical Officers at no less than Clerical Officer grade 4 level. This is supported by the fact that Clerical Officers at grade 3 level would not have the necessary authority to generate or sign off on purchase orders. The current remuneration of a Clerical Officer grade 4 with equivalent service to that of the Worker’s stands at €45,556 per annum giving a difference in the current rates applicable to the Worker of €12,518 per annum or €240.07 per week. In addition, Clerical Officers work 37.5-hour week as opposed to the 39-hour week worked by the Worker and have additional annual leave as part of their terms and conditions of employment.

As a Union SIPTU acknowledges that there is a job evaluation currently being undertaken between SIPTU and the Employer in respect of the general porter grades. However, this evaluation would , and could not, encapsulate the roles and responsibilities that have been assigned to the Worker as it does not encompass the work of Clerical Officers for comparison purposes and the work involved is well beyond the scope of normal porter duties. The circumstances applicable to the Worker is an anomaly and one that cannot be rectified under the current job evaluation process.

The Worker is only seeking the application of fairness and to be paid properly for the work he is undertaking.

SIPTU is seeking that the Worker is recognised properly for pay purposes and that his grade and rate of pay would be retrospectively amended to that of Clerical Officer grade 4.

The Employer submits as follows:

The Worker commenced his employment on 15th February 2007 as a driver. In April 2014 he requested a transfer to the Maintenance Department. The transfer was approved and sanctioned on 2nd July 2014 and the Worker took up a role of a porter in the Maintenance Department on 7th July 2014. The Employer acknowledged that the Worker is an excellent employee.

The Employer submits that it received a number of requests from SIPTU in respect of the Worker’s grade. The Employer confirms that it explored all options but was not successful.

The Employer accepted, and confirmed, that it is acknowledged by the management, that the Worker carries out duties as outlined in SIPTU’s submission (albeit some minor issues were raised at the hearing). The Employer noted that the Worker is performing the work of a Supplies Officer which is comparable to a grade 4 Clerical Officer role. However, the Employer is not in a position to create/ hire a Supplies Officer or a Clerical Officer in place of the Worker’s porter role.  An anomaly was created when the Worker moved to the Maintenance Department.

The Employer noted that the national job evaluation process has completed phase 3 and reached phase 4 which would encompass the porter grade. Given the pandemic, the Employer was not sure when phase 4 will commence. In any event, the Employer noted that the Worker is in the category of a non-officer post and it would not be possible to evaluate the post against an officer post (such as a Clerical Officer one).

The Employer said that it has to be conscious of the recruitment process and when the matter was put to Forsa (the Union who represents the Officer Grade) for consideration and evaluation, the proposal was turned down by the Forsa.

The Employer assured the hearing that there is willingness at the management level to come to some arrangement.

I have carefully considered all the written and oral submissions presented in relation to this dispute.

There was no dispute between the parties that since the move to the Maintenance Department in 2014, the Worker has been carrying out duties which are applicable to the grade 4 Clerical Officer while continuing to be paid at the grade of a porter. I note that the Worker is recognised by the Employer as a valued employee.

There was also no dispute that the current job evaluation would not encompass the Worker as he, as it was put, “falls between two stools”. The Employer emphasised its willingness to regularise the Worker’s post. However, both parties noted that there is no mechanism in place that would allow for evaluation of the Worker’s post and as a result the Worker continues to be paid at a lower grade.

As there is no dispute that for majority of his tenure with the Employer the Worker has been carrying out the role of a higher grade without additional remuneration and that there is no avenue between the grades structure to remedy the situation, a compromise needs to be struck.

In relation to the substantive post, given the Employer’s acknowledgement that the role as currently carried out by the Worker is effectively a grade 4 Clerical Officer role, I recommend that a competition for a grade 4 Clerical Officer be advertised in line with nationally agreed recruitment practice.

I also recommend that the Worker be paid at the rate of a grade 4 Clerical Officer (reflecting the appropriate point on the CO scale applicable to the Worker’s service since July 2014) on a temporary personal to holder basis with effect from the date of this Recommendation pending the outcome of the competition.

In the particular circumstances of this dispute and in recognition of the duties carried out by the Worker for a number of years, I also recommend that he be paid compensation in the amount of €10,000.

This Recommendation reflects only the specific circumstances relating to this dispute and should not be taken to have wider implications for other employees.

In relation to the substantive post, given the Employer’s acknowledgement that the role as currently carried out by the Worker is effectively a grade 4 Clerical Officer role, I recommend that a competition for a grade 4 Clerical Officer be advertised in line with nationally agreed recruitment practice.

I also recommend that the Worker be paid at the rate of a grade 4 Clerical Officer (reflecting the appropriate point on the CO scale applicable to the Worker’s service in the role since July 2014) on a temporary personal to holder basis with effect from the date of this Recommendation pending the outcome of the competition.

In the particular circumstances of this dispute and in recognition of the duties carried out by the Worker for a number of years, I also recommend that he be paid compensation in the amount of €10,000.

Job evaluation – pay - grade