Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Social Care Worker

Social Care Provider

Representatives

  Self

Cliona Kenny, Comyn Kelleher Tobin Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000015

30/03/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000016

30/03/2022

The Worker is employed as a Social Care Worker.  The Worker claims that she is performing the duties of a Social Care Leader and seeks regrading to that role which attracts a higher rate of remuneration.

The Employer rejects the claim on the basis that it is a cost-increasing claim which is precluded for the duration of the current national pay agreement.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 23 October 2017.   She was working in a team made up of both Social Care Workers and Social Care Leaders.  The Worker asserts that there is no difference between the position of Social Care Worker and Social Care Leader and that each team member had equal roles and responsibilities and carried out the same work.

On commencement of her employment, the team consisted of two Social Care Workers (including the Worker) and three Social Care Leaders.   Two of the Social Care Leaders transferred to other positions within the Employer organisation and one went on career break. All three Social Care Leader positions remain vacant.  The Worker was not given the opportunity to apply for these positions nor was she given the opportunity to act up in the role of Social Care Leader.  The Worker contends that she was not afforded any opportunity for career progression within the Employer organisation.

On 4 October 2019 the Worker met with her then Line Manager.  The Worker asserted that the role she was undertaking as a Social Care Worker involved responsibilities at a higher level and met the criteria for Social Care Leader. Her Line Manager accepted the arguments made by the Worker that the role she was performing was that of a Social Care Leader. The Worker invoked the grievance procedure to address the dispute.

In keeping with the Employer’s Grievance Procedure, a meeting was held on the 14 November 2019 with a local manager and the Area Manager. The outcome of the meeting was agreement that the roles and responsibilities of the Family Worker (the Worker’s role) were on par with Social Care Leader, but it was not within the gift of management to regrade the Worker. The grievance was forwarded to the Regional Manager under Stage 2 of the Grievance Procedure.  Due to the Covid pandemic, and the suspension of the Disciplinary and Grievance procedure, the meeting with the Regional Manager was delayed.

On 20 October 2020, a meeting was held between the Worker and the Regional Manager. The outcome of this meeting was that the Regional Manager acknowledged that the Worker had a valid claim but he was not in the position to regrade her role.  The Regional Manager advised the Worker to refer the grievance under Stage 3 of the Employer’s Grievance Procedure to the Regional HR Manager.

On the 13 July 2021 a Stage 3 meeting was held with the Worker, her Trade Union representative and the Regional HR Manager. During the meeting the Worker described her role and responsibilities as a Family Worker and explained that these were in line with the job spec of a Social Care Leader.

The Worker produced a letter dated 27 November 2017 from the Trade Union regarding another roles which is graded at the Social Care Leader level. Having compared that role with her own role, it was evident to the Worker that the duties and responsibilities were comparable. However, in addition to the responsibilities of that role, the Worker is also required to undertake risk assessments, on-call support, Court reports and attendance, child protection case conferences and access reviews. Alongside all of these additional responsibilities, she is responsible for case management and is required to provide 24 hour, 7 days a week cover.  The Worker asserts that, whilst working in her role, she is subjected to a higher level of risk than staff in the comparable role.

During the meeting with the Regional HR Manager, the Trade Union representative agreed that concession of the Worker’s claim, given its uniqueness, would not set a precedent for other social care workers nationwide.  However, the outcome of the meeting was that the Regional HR Manager made the decision not to concede the Worker’s claim on the basis that it was prohibited by the Building Momentum pay agreement and would be regarded as a cost-increasing claim.  The Worker asserts that her Trade Union is of the view that her claim is not a cost-increasing claim which is prohibited under the national agreement, rather it is acknowledgement of the work that the Worker is performing.

The Worker referred to the current recruitment campaign for Social Care Leaders which provides details of the responsibilities of that role.  The Worker contends that she is expected to perform above and beyond those duties on a daily basis.  With regard to the supervisory element of the Social Care Leader role, the Worker contends that this is required on a 'needs' basis and is not an everyday requirement of the role.  The Worker asserts that there is currently no need for a supervisory role in her area but that she has been advised by management that she will be expected to carry out supervisory duties once new staff come on board.  The Worker further asserts that she holds all the qualifications required for the Social Care Leader role.

Conclusion

The Worker is seeking acknowledgement that her role should be graded as a Social Care Leader.  The Worker asserts that management has never disputed that she is doing all the duties associated with that grade. However, the Worker has been advised it is not within their remit to regrade her.

The Worker asserts that her Trade Union is of the view that her claim is not a cost-increasing claim in breach of the national agreement.  Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the work that she is performing. 

The Employer submits that, in essence, the Complainant is asking the WRC to redraw her contract of employment and upgrade her role from Social Care Worker to Social Care Leader.

The Employer contends that, while it is clear that the Complainant is well regarded and the significance of her work is acknowledged, it is not possible to regrade the Worker’s role and change her contract as to do so would breach the national agreements, in particular “Building Momentum – a new public service agreement 2021-2022”.

The Employer submits that a restructuring programme is currently underway in its organisation.  Once complete, it is intended that the relevant Trade Union and the Employer’s Employee Relations section will engage on the Social Care structures and career structures. 

The Employer submits that any regrading or changes to Social Care roles and career structures are matters for negotiation with the unions and stakeholders in line with the national pay structures.  It is not within the gift of the Employer to regrade the Worker’s role and change her contract. In particular, the Employer submits that it is not permitted to regrade roles in the manner suggested as such a move would be cost-increasing and is precluded for the duration of the current national pay agreements. 

The Employer submits that the parties are subject to a collective bargaining relationship, and a referral pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act is inappropriate in the circumstances where there are agreed procedures for dealing with such issues.

The Employer submits that regrading of posts within its organisation is a matter for government and cannot be circumvented in the manner of a complaint to the WRC.

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

I note that the Worker is well regarded by the Employer.  I also note, however, the Employer’s contention that this claim is a cost-increasing claim which is precluded under the terms of the current national pay agreement (Building Momentum). 

I further note that the Employer is currently engaged in a restructuring programme which will lead to negotiations with the relevant Trade Union on the Social Care structures and career structures.

Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties on this issue, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Cost-increasing claim precluded under national wage agreement