Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Senior Executive Officer

Health Service provider

Representatives

Eamon Donnelly

Fórsa

Eamonn Ross

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-00027345-001

28/03/2019

The worker was first employed in 1997. In 1999 he applied for and was granted a career break. His career break extended beyond the maximum five-year limit and he returned to the workplace in January 2014.

The worker's case was that the role of management accountant when he commenced employment was aligned with a salary of Grade VII in the organisation.

While on career break a new salary grading system was introduced in 2001 and this outlined the Grade VIII status for all management accountants from that date forward.

The worker returned to work in January 2014 as a Grade VII. He performed the duties and responsibilities of a management accountant.

The grading and pay discrepancy soon became apparent and he escalated the issue requesting parity of esteem.

In 2018 the worker received confirmation from the head of HR stating that he had missed out on the "regularisation process" that had taken place in 2013.

The worker's case was that he was never informed during or on his return from a career break that management accountants were upgraded to Grade VIII.

His role has been marginalised because he returned to work at a Grade below his relevant Grade.  He has been overlooked for suitable open positions due to his Grade VII status.

The worker sought a recommendation on the conversion of the post held by him from Grade VII to Grade VIII and sought compensation for his employer's lack of engagement in dealing with this matter.

The workers career break extended beyond the maximum five-year limit.

During his extended career break, his role was subsumed into a larger role. The expanded role was carried out by a Grade VIII accountant.

As the workers role was no longer in existence when he applied to return from his career break he returned as a Grade VII admin clerical Grade.  His role involves reporting to the administration manager and the finance manager.

In June 2018 the employer rejected the workers claim to be re-graded as a Grade VIII accountant.

The employer submitted that the worker was returned to his role as Grade VII which was the same Grade as that which he left to go on career break.

The employer disputed that there was any evidence to support the worker's contention that Accountant Grade VII was upgraded to an Accountant Grade VIII.  It submitted that the only way a staff member can move from Grade VII to Grade VIII through open competition.

An agreement was reached in 2013 to implement a regularisation process whereby staff who satisfy certain criteria have their rules upgraded from the 1 October 2013.

The employer was satisfied that no upgrade of accounting roles took place while the worker was on career break.

The employer submitted that the worker did not satisfy the criteria for regularisation under the 2013 circular as he was on career break during the applicable time.

To accede to the worker’s request to have his role upgraded to Grade VIII would create a precedent that would have a large financial impact.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The parties agree that the position the worker was hired for was the equivalent of a Grade VII position.

The parties are in conflict as to whether the Grade of management accountant was upgraded in 2001 or not. I have not been provided with any evidence that would substantiate same. The inter-office memorandum I was furnished with in relation to a colleague of the worker dated 30th of July 2001 stated that the post was currently graded at Grade VII level.  That colleague went through a regrading process that was in place at the time.

Circular 3/2002 makes no reference to Grade VII or Grade VIII.  It refers to revised qualifications for the post management accountant. 

The terms of circular 17/2013 do not apply to the worker as he was on career break at the time of its introduction.

The worker returned from career break as a Senior Executive Officer – Grade VII.  This was in accordance with the terms of the career break scheme.

In 2015 the worker submitted that he was carrying out the duties of an accountant and not the duties of an Executive Officer.

There is a requirement that both sides in cases such as this must be reasonable.

The worker applied for and was granted a career break. This was extended for a considerable period.  On his return to the workplace he was placed on the same Grade as he left some 14 years earlier. 

There are agreed procedures in place between the employer and the health unions. If I was to find in the workers favour, I would be encouraging a breach of the agreed procedures.

Return from career break.  Regularising of role.