Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

A Transport Company

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-00042686-001

24/02/2021

The dispute concerns the appropriate grade for the Workers role.

The case relates  to the role and the grade of that role in which the Employee has worked in since 1999 and maintained a clean record throughout her 22 years of service. The Worker has raised an issue regarding the regrading matter for her current role, but the outcome is not satisfactory. The Worker is seeking to be put on the proper grade for this post and to be treated equally to that of her colleagues in the same post.

The Worker works as a Clerical Officer Grade 2 with the employer. The Worker applied for a role in Limerick at a time when she was commuting daily to Dublin. The role advertised in 2014 was that of Infrastructure Management Operations at Executive B Grade. The job advertisement was supplied.

The employer then decided to withdraw the advertisement as a cost cutting measure and the post remained vacant. The Worker continued with her daily commute to Dublin from Limerick as she was stationed in Connolly Station Dublin at that time.

Then in February 2015 the Worker was seconded into this very role but was informed that she would remain on her existing grade of Clerical Officer Grade 2, due to cost cutting measures. There was an inference that the role would eventually be upgraded.

The Worker applied for her post to be upgraded in July 2017. The same post around the country was being paid at that of Executive B Grade, therefore the post the Worker holds should also be paid at that grade. However, due to additional duties being carried out by the Worker she applied for an upgrade to Executive C. Email confirmation of application and list of responsibilities were supplied.

The Worker was asked to complete a Position Analysis Questionnaire as part of the application for the Upgrade. This was completed and returned without delay as part of the upgrade application.

A SIPTU Industrial Organiser wrote to the employer in April 2019 requesting the outcome of the application and also raising an issue regarding the advertisement of another role similar to that of the Worker's role but attracted a higher grade.

The Worker was issued with a letter from the Acting 1M HRM dated Ist July 2019 confirming the application for regrading was unsuccessful.

The Worker appealed this decision as it is not acceptable that the job in which the Worker works is graded at Clerical Officer Grade 2 when the same role around the country are paid at Executive B posts. As part of the appeals process SIPTU wrote to the HR Department, requesting a copy of the Scoring Mechanism and the "Cahill Plan" in which the employer confirmed was used in order to determine the outcome of the regarding application. The employer never issued the requested documents to SIPTU or to the Worker.

The Worker was informed verbally that the appeal was unsuccessful. There was no formal outcome of the appeals process issued to the Worker

The Worker was never made aware of the reasons why the employer chose not to regrade her post other than "Your current grade is appropriate to the role in which you are currently employed". It was argued that this is not sufficient in circumstances where the same role is paid at a higher grade around the country.

The employer did not respond to SIPTU's request on behalf of our member requesting the said results of the process used to determine the outcome of the application to regards.

The Worker Representative contended the Employer totally disregarded their members application for regrading and when pushed for a response they then issued a letter confirming the negative outcome with no documentation to support their decision.

It was also contented that the same role in other counties are paid at the Executive B Grade, which is above that of the Worker's current grade.

The original post which advertised the role in which the Worker currently holds confirms the role is that of an Executive B Grade.

The worker Representative requested that the Worker is regraded to the proper grade as Executive B as originally advertised, and that is paid to her colleagues in the same role in other counties

The worker works as a Clerical Officer in the Infrastructure Management Operations department and is based in Limerick.  The Worker started working in the company in 1999 and was appointed to her current grade in 2005.   

The Workers complaint has been referred under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and relates to an appeal of the regrading process review of her role.  The Worker believes her role should be regraded to that of an Executive Grade B.   

The company has an established process that applies for reviewing grades following guidelines prepared by IPC Consultancy in 1999.  This process is commonly known as the “Cahill Plan”.   The company position is that this process was followed in the case of the Worker as it does for all regrading applications.  

In March 2018 the Industrial Relations Manager was requested to carry out an evaluation of the Worker’s role.  In June 2018 the role evaluation report was submitted to the Human Resources Manager.  The evaluation concluded that the role was appropriately graded at the current grade.

The Worker was issued a letter confirming that her application to be regraded had not been successful.  The Worker then confirmed by email to the Director HR that she wished to appeal the decision of the role evaluation. 

In December 2019 the HR Services Manager conducted a second evaluation of the Workers role.  This review concluded that the role scored at the level of the current grade of Clerical Officer Grade 2.  The Worker was advised of the outcome of the second review by her senior Manager.

In July 2020 SIPTU wrote to the Director, Human Resources advising that SIPTU were not satisfied with the outcome of the process. They further advised that SIPTU considered that the current regrading process to be flawed and that they would be referring the case to a third-party

Queries were then raised by with the company that there are directly comparable roles in IM Operations East and IM Operations South and that they are both graded as Executive Grade B.  The company position is that the circumstances surrounding these grades are clearly different to the Worker’s.   The role in IM Operations East is an Executive Grade B and includes additional responsibilities including a requirement to deputise for the Operations Control Manager. The role in IM Operations West is currently an Executive Grade B but should in fact be a Clerical Officer 2 and will be advertised as such when the incumbent departs the role. This role was incorrectly advertised at the time as an Executive Grade B.  This followed the departure of the incumbent at that time who had been red-circled on the Executive Grade B rate of pay.   

There is also a comparable role in IM Operations Mallow for which a grading evaluation was completed in recent months and the outcome of that evaluation was also a Clerical Officer Grade 2.

The regrading review process carried out in this case is the same process as conducted in all regrading reviews of Clerical and Executive roles.  In 2019 there were 18 recommendations made for upgrading out of a total of 27 IM clerical and executive employees.  

The company position is that because an employee is dissatisfied with the outcome of a review does not make the process flawed.  There are many employees over the years who have been unsuccessful in their regrading applications and the same process is followed at all times.  

In his letter of July 2019 SIPTU wrote that “…I can advise that this Union is dissatisfied with the current process.  I now believe that the process of both regrading and appeal is flawed.”  However, no specific process flaw has been identified.  Some of the 18 IM employees upgraded in 2019 are members of SIPTU.  The Employer questioned that of the process was flawed were these processes that regraded other roles upwards also flawed.

If SIPTU are of the view that the regrading process is flawed and needs to be reviewed then the appropriate mechanism is to request discussions with the company and the TSSA who are the other Trade Union with negotiating rights for both Clerical and Executive grades in the company.  These discussions would be under the long established Framework for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution and, if this proved unsatisfactory, then the matter could be referred to the Conciliation Services of the Workplace Relations Commission.  

A letter from SIPTU in 2019 is an example of how the company’s regrading process is a collective issue.  SIPTU wrote to the company requesting a meeting in relation to the retrospective application of successful regradings.  This letter did not refer to an individual employee and, ironically, was seeking the retrospective application of successful regrading applications granted through the same process that he previously claimed to be flawed in the Worker’s case.  

It was acknowledged that the Worker is not satisfied with the outcome of her regrading review but the company position remains that her complaint is unfounded.  The company have applied the regrading process in her case in a manner consistent with how it has been applied to all other Clerical and Executive employees who apply for regrading.  It has always been the case that there have been successful and unsuccessful regrading applications.  The company position is that the process is robust and has led to many employees being upgraded over the years including, most recently, 18 IM employees in 2019.  

The company position is that the same regrading process was followed in the case of the Worker as for all regrading applications.  The Worker’s complaint must be reviewed in the context of the process and not the outcome of the process.

Summary of Regrading Process

Employee applies for regrading directly to their line manager.

The HR Manager requests a colleague experienced in the process to conduct the review.  This is usually a colleague from Industrial Relations or a manager from the other side of the company.  

HR request the employee to conduct a questionnaire on their role.  

The employee questionnaire is reviewed by the employee’s line manager.

The role reviewer is provided with the questionnaire and all other relevant documentation, i.e. Job Specification, Safety Responsibility Statement etc. 

The role reviewer meets/calls the employee to discuss role to clarify any questions they have and an opportunity for the employee to add anything they may have missed in the questionnaire.  

The role reviewer meets/calls the employee’s manager to discuss the role and to address any clarifications they require.  

The role reviewer produces a report scoring the role following the Cahill Plan.

When complete, the report is sent to the HR Manager who requested it.

If the recommendation is for an upgrading then the business prepare a business case that is sent to the CEO for approval.

If the recommendation is that the current grade is appropriate the HR Manager informs the employee of this and that they have the right of appeal to the Director HR.  

If an appeal is requested the Director HR requests a second review to be conducted by another colleague, usually from IR or the other side of the company.  

The role review is then reviewed again and further meetings as described above are arranged, if necessary.  The result of the review is issued in the same manner as outlined above.  

If, at this stage, an employee is dissatisfied with the outcome they can appeal to a third-party.  

The employer stated one comparable employee was red circled at a higher grade and this will revert to a Clerical role when that person no longer occupies that position. A similar position in Mallow was evaluated and confirmed as a Clerical Officer Grade 2, the same as the Worker who made this complaint. The advertising of the role as Executive B Grade, and subsequently withdrawn, did not help matters.

It is not the role of an Adjudicator to recommend an increase in Grade unless there is a clear and obvious evidence and rationale for same, which is not the situation in this case. Also, it is not the role of an Adjudicator to” second guess” the result of an internal grading review when the detailed rationale for declining the request is not available to the Adjudicator for evaluation. In this case both the upgrade decision and the provision of detailed reasons for refusing the upgrade are contested. In addition, a detailed system for reviewing upgrade requests is in place “the Cahill Plan” and is jointly agreed by the Trade Unions involved and the Employer. Details of this scheme were not provided to the Adjudicator. Also, no detailed comparison of the roles alleged to be the same as the Employee were provided to the Adjudicator.

The Employer gave its reasons for not approving the upgrade request to the Hearing which are contested by the Worker and it was accepted by a Worker Representative that some other comparable employees may be required to do more duties than the Worker does  but they are not asked to do so on a practical level, thus providing grounds for their claim. In the Employers submission they were open to a review of the system for reviewing upgrade requests but any change would have to be agreed at a general level with the Trade Unions and not specific to this claim. This could/may involve giving the detailed grounds as to why a request for an upgrade was not approved.

 I recommend the Employer give the specific grounds for the denial of the upgrade to the Worker, in writing, within four weeks of the date of this Recommendation. As this would appear not to be the standard practice, and if the Employer has an objection to providing this information, while outside the direct remit of this dispute but also a contributory factor to the dispute, I then recommend the Parties engage at the appropriate level of general discussion/negotiation (The Framework for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution)  on the issue of providing details of why an upgrade claim is not provided to an upgrade applicant and pending agreement on the issue the Worker involved in this claim should then retrospectively, on a red circled basis and not to be used as a basis for other declined upgrade requests in the past, be supplied with the written grounds for declining the upgrade or such other outcome as decided/agreed by the Employer and Trade Unions involved at the general review level. This process should, if possible, be concluded within three months of the date of this Recommendation.

 The Worker then should have the right and opportunity to resubmit her upgrade claim internally and subsequently (if the upgrade is not approved) to the WRC for further adjudication, preferably  by a different Adjudicator and if successful, her upgrade should be backdated to the date she submitted her claim to the WRC, February 24th 2021, or such earlier date as may be agreed directly by the Parties or Recommended by the Adjudicator involved. Given I have to recommend in favour of a Party, I reluctantly, recommend in favour of the Employer.

Grade dispute