Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Aine Feeney SIPTU Workers Rights Centre

  HR Director

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA 00042495

15.02.2021

 In her complaint form, the claimant states as follows: I have been carrying out the role of Laboratory Aide for a long number of years. I applied to be regularised / regraded to this grade from the grade of Laboratory Attendant, by invoking the Grievance procedure, but this was refused on the 1st July, 2020. I am carrying out all of the functions of Laboratory Aide and am seeking to be regraded and renumerated appropriately. I am also seeking retrospective pay for the period that I have been carrying out the role of Laboratory Aide. The respondent accepts there is merit on the case but submits that there is no mechanism available to them to reclassify the claimant’s grade.

The union set out a chronology of the claimant’s career since commencing employment as a student Laboratory Technician in Sept. 1999.In November 2019 the claimant pursued a grievance through the respondent’s grievance procedure – she contended that she had been carrying out the duties of a Laboratory Aide for a significant period of time while only receiving the pay of a Laboratory Attendant. The union chronicled the ensuing engagement between the parties and advised that the respondent was not contesting the merits in her contention that she was working as a Laboratory Aide.  It was submitted that a newly appointed Laboratory Aide was taking up employment at the same location and would receive significantly more than the claimant while doing the same job. The respondent commenced payment of the higher rate of pay with effect from the 14th.March 2022.It was submitted that the claimant’s line manager supported the claimant’s position. The union set out a number of authorities which it was submitted supported the claimant’s arguments and sought her regrading retrospectively with a claim for compensation for the distress caused to the claimant in failing to settle the matter.

The respondent did not dispute the facts or chronology of events outlined by the union. It was acknowledged that over recent years the laboratory had become busier and had taken on additional staff and testing and that the claimant was an integral member of the Laboratory team. It was further acknowledged that the claim was doing the work of a Laboratory Aide but there was – it was submitted, no mechanism for the respondent to regrade the claimant’s post while she was in the post.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties as well as the authorities relied upon by the union. The parties are not disputing that the claimant is doing the work of a Laboratory Aide. In such circumstances, it is not fair to the claimant to expect her to work for a lower rate of pay. Consequently, I am upholding the complaint.

Given the unique circumstances in this case I am recommending in full and final settlement of this complaint that the claimant be reclassified as a Laboratory Aide and that she be paid the maximum of the Laboratory Aide scale with effect from whatever date in 2020 yields a retrospective sum of €15,000. I further recommend that arrangements with respect to timing of the payment of arrears   be the subject of further discussion between the parties.