Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Station Manager

A Transport  Provider

Representatives

Siptu

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-00044785-001

25/6/2021

The worker seeks to have the regarding of her role reviewed by an independent evaluator and submits that there were unacceptable time delays in the process.

The worker commenced employment in 2003 and is currently a Station Manager at Grade B with 22 people reporting to her.  In January 2018 the worker made an application to be regraded from a Grade B role to a Grade C role.  The application was rejected and the worker sought a copy of the full assessment so as to better understand the basis for the decision but this was denied and the worker appealed the decision.

As a result of the appeal there was some improvement in the worker’s overall score but the result meant that she would remain at a Grade B. The process appears to be based on internal evaluation and the worker deems this dispute suitable for an independent assessment. 

The worker requested this independent evaluation on 18 May 2021 but this was declined by the employer.  On 19 May 2021 the employer advised that the criteria used was an agreed structure and the scores determined by trained HR personnel and were scientific in nature and that there was nothing in the union agreement that provided for the criteria to be shared.  Furthermore, the employer, would not agree to have an independent role evaluation.

Throughout the process the worker has endured unnecessary delays and as the employer failed to furnish her with reasons for the decision not to explain the criteria to her and/or regrade her, she has had to pursue a Freedom of Information request.

It is the submission of the worker that she has not been treated fairly or with transparency throughout the process.  The worker believes that her scorning falls below the level that she considers appropriate.  The worker remains unclear as to where she was found lacking in her application.  The worker is seeking a full review of the matter as through her appeal it was clear that there were errors made in her scoring and the employer has refused to fully explain the criteria used.

.

The worker is seeking to have the re-grading of her role reviewed by an independent evaluator.

The worker applied for regrading in 2018 and the application was dealt with under the Cahill Plan for executive grading which was introduced around 2001.  This process assesses positions in a scientific manner under certain criteria under the overall organisational structure. Under the Cahill Plan there is an assessment of the job under 6 different criteria, with points awarded for each of these criteria and these points when totalled slot into a scoring band which determines the grading for a particular position.  

While in 2015 the company made a decision that no regradings would be processed until further notice due to the financial circumstances, the Company then agreed a pay deal with the Trade Unions and in 2018 the outstanding regrading applications were processed but no decisions were issued to the employees. It was then decided that all the outstanding decisions would be issued in Quarter 2 of 2019.

The worker utilised the process which resulted in her achieving a score of 743 and which as a result meant that her grade would remain as is.  She appealed this and under the appeal’s process achieved a score of 800 but this did not change the overall grade that her job was evaluated at.  Under the process if the worker remains unhappy she may refer their application to a rights commission (now the Adjudication services of the WRC) and parties commit to accept in full the recommendation.

The worker requested a copy of the results of her examination but was refused on the basis that it is not the practice of the Human Resource Department to issue the scoring matrix to untrained personnel as it is intended for trained Human Resource Personnel only.   The worker appealed the decision with the appeal completed on a de novo basis The appeal process found that the worker was appropriately graded in her current role and no regrade was warranted. The worker raised a grievance with her District Manager and raised a number of queries in relation to the process and the fact that it took longer than expected.

On the 18th May the Company received correspondence from the Trade Union requesting an independent evaluation of the worker’s role but this is not part of the regrading process.  There was one previous occasion where an independent evaluation took place but this was where there were very unique circumstances of a new role in the organisation and it was explicitly set out by the internal evaluator at the time and on appeal to the Rights Commissioner it was recommended by the Rights Commission.  It was submitted that the external evaluator upheld that those roles were appropriately graded.

While there is no dispute that there were delays in relation to the processing of the claim, however, the rational for the delays were mostly beyond the employer’s control and were accepted by the Trade Union.  The process used to evaluate the workers role is the same process used to evaluate any other roles and the worker has not submitted any justifiable reasons why the employer should deviate from the process and appoint an independent evaluator. Any concession of this claim would lead to a precedent that the Company could not support, and be severely detrimental to the internally agreed regrading process.

The worker submits that the process used in her grading evaluation was unfair and was not transparent.  The employer denies the claim.

An agreement was reached between the union and the employer regarding the regrading process under the Cahill Plan.  I have reviewed this process which allows for an appeal to the HR Manager and a further appeal to (what was then) a Rights Commissioner.  I note that that there is no provision within the agreement for an independent evaluation.  The worker submits that the employer failed to follow the timelines provided within their procedure and while some of this was outside the employer’s control owing to Covid, the fault of other time delays rests firmly with the employer.  Furthermore the worker submits that it is unacceptable to submit that there is science behind the evaluation and not explain the science behind the evaluation to the worker.

Taking into consideration the oral and written submissions I recommend that owing to the unique circumstances of this dispute:

A senior employee at a manager level who is familiar with the process should sit down with the worker and her representative to provide what appears to be the missing transparency around the scientific process used to grade her position.

Furthermore, the employer should pay the worker €800 by way of compensation for their failure to follow agreed time lines within the Grading Agreement.

I recommend that owing to the unique circumstances of this dispute:

A senior employee at a manager level who is familiar with the process should sit down with the worker and her representative to provide what appears to be the missing transparency around the scientific process used to grade her position.

Furthermore, the employer should pay the worker €800 by way of compensation for their failure to follow agreed time lines within the Grading Agreement.

Regarding, job evaluation