Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Supervisor

A Hospital

Representatives

Fórsa

IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00043492-001

9th April 2021

The worker outlines that he is performing additional tasks to his Grade 5 role; a claim denied by the employer.

The worker was appointed a Grade 5 supervisor on the 1st May 2019. Part of this role was to identify issues and report them to the Maintenance Department, who would in turn engage an external contractor. The Maintenance Department then declined to participate in this process, so on the 19th July 2019 the worker was assigned five tasks in the hospital relating to this maintenance function. They were 1. Determine what repairs/replacement of equipment was required; 2. Obtain quotes from the external contractor, 3. Prepare a form required to raise a Purchase Order, 4 Raise the Purchase Order and 5. Sign off on the invoice and completed work in order for payment to issue.

The worker outlines that these were additional functions to his Grade 5 role and merit the re-grading of his current role. He has been carrying out this role under protest. The worker outlines that this work amounts to a significant increase in his workload.

The worker was upgraded to a Grade 6 for one year per the email of the 2nd August 2019 and then returned to Grade 5. The worker outlined that while he was appointed to the Grade 5 role in May 2019, he had been the lead person in the department since 2018, when the housekeeping manager left.

The worker stated that at no stage was he informed that there were Grade 5 duties not being asked of him on a temporary basis, following his appointment to the Grade. There should have been documentation to back up such a temporary alleviation of duties.

The worker outlined that he had exhausted the grievance procedure and he then referred the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission.

In reply to the employer, the worker outlined that he worked in grade 4, 5 and 6 roles. He agreed that a role could evolve but this required consultation in particular when there was a need for something new. The worker was not told that the maintenance department had taken over part of his role when he was appointed Grade 5. He had not needed settling-in time in the Grade 5 role.

The worker said that he was not informed that there were Grade 5 duties not initially assigned to him in May 2019, nor that they would later be assigned to him. It was for the employer to explain why anything was removed from a job description and to explain why it was reverting to him. He had never completed duties in the linen department and only did a named purchased order for linen every 6 to 8 weeks.

The worker outlined that it was only during stage 1 of the grievance process that the employer became clear about the five duties he undertook. He worked under protest in respect of these roles. He would have expected correspondence to support the position that duties had been temporarily assigned to the maintenance department. The worker had been in this area of duty when he moved from Grade 4 to Grade 5 and then to Grade 6 so did not need a settling-in period. The worker knew the department inside out and any temporary re-assignment should have been better communicated to him.

The employer accepted that the worker had begun a Grade 5 role in 2019. There had been restructuring in household services and new roles created: a Grade 6, a Grade 5 and a Grade 4. Duties were redistributed and this occurred before the worker took the Grade 5 role. The worker was promoted to the Grade 5 role. The worker took on additional responsibilities along with the Health and Safety Manager in order for issues to be addressed. The worker was supplied with a list of duties.

The worker reverted to the Grade 5 role on the 2nd August 2020. The employer outlined that when the worker was initially promoted to the Grade 5 role, not all duties were assigned to him to allow him to immerse into the role. After three months, he was later assigned the acting up Grade 6 position. The worker was then assigned the full Grade 5 duties on his return to that role.

The employer outlined that the worker had not stated previously that he was working under protest. It was submitted that security is mentioned in the March 2019 job description. The job description referred to duties being assigned to the worker over time.

In reply to the worker, the employer outlined that the duties were part of the worker’s job description so there was no need to consult with him. The employer outlined that the worker checked invoices in the linen department and did not raise purchase orders as this was done under contract.

The employer outlined that there were discussions in August 2020 about the removal of the worker’s Grade 6 duties. The 2019 email from the manager set out the worker’s temporary duties including the security responsibilities and the clear duties as part of the Grade 5 role.

The worker is an experienced and established member of the respondent housekeeping team, having started with the hospital in 2011. In 2019, there were changes. A senior housekeeping manager left. There was an inspection that led to the appointment of a new Health & Safety Manager. It was in this context that the worker was, in May 2019, promoted to a Grade 5 supervisor role, and then in August 2019, promoted to an acting Grade 6 role. The acting role ended in August 2020.

The issue in dispute is whether the maintenance roles set out in 1 – 5 above were part of the Grade 5 supervisor role. It was the employer’s position that they were, albeit that the worker had not fulfilled these tasks between May and August 2019 as this was time for the worker to immerse himself into the role. The worker takes a different position, i.e. that these were new tasks added to his role in 2020.

There was obviously change in 2019. A new structure was introduced, and a new Health & Safety Manager appointed. The worker was assigned Grade 6 security-related duties in August 2019, and this ended a year later. As noted, what is in question is the scope of the worker’s duties on his return to the Grade 5 role in August 2020.

The parties referred to the job specification, dated March 2019. This contains 14 ‘responsibilities and accountabilities’ and within these 14 categories are 67 specific roles. The maintenance responsibilities set out at 1 – 5 above are not mentioned in either the 14 categories or 67 specific roles. There is a reference to security and in 2019-20 the worker had an augmented security role per the Grade 6 assignment.

The worker is an experienced and established member of housekeeping. This was why he could be promoted to Grade 5 and then quickly act up to a Grade 6. He did not need time for ‘immersion’, ‘bedding in’ etc. It is true that the worker’s acting up was to assist the new Health & Safety Manager to bed in (per the email of the 3rd August 2019). There is, however, no such document to support the contention that the worker needed time to bed in. In fact, he was already established and experienced.

The employer provided a very detailed document regarding the roles of the Grade 5 supervisor. This is dated March 2019 and the worker appointed to the role in May 2019. There is no suggestion that there were additional maintenance duties, waiting on the margins, to be assigned to the successful candidate. I find that the maintenance roles (1-5) were not encompassed in the original Grade 5 role and were added to it in mid-2020. It follows that the worker’s dispute is meritorious.

I am not in a position to say that the maintenance roles set out in 1-5 above warrant the worker being moved to a Grade 6 role. I find that these significant duties are not encompassed in his current Grade 5 role and are in addition to the job description. I recommend that the total role be evaluated by a mutually-agreed person to ascertain whether this is a Grade 6 role.

I also recommend that the employer pay the worker €4,000 in recognition for these additional tasks undertaken under protest. The worker is correct that the maintenance roles were in addition to his already-extensive Grade 5 role. He pursued the internal processes, yet all the time carrying out all required duties. I have found that the substance of his dispute is meritorious so the period of his working under protest must be recognised in the recommendation.

CA-00043492-001

I recommend that the worker’s role be evaluated by a mutually-agreed person to ascertain the appropriate grading of the  role, including whether it is a Grade 6 role, taking into account the Grade 5 duties set out in the Job Description, dated March 2019 and the additional tasks of: 1. Determine what repairs/replacement of equipment was required; 2. Obtain quotes from the external contractor, 3. Prepare a form required to raise a Purchase Order, 4. Raise the Purchase Order and 5. Sign off on the invoice and completed work in order for payment to issue.

I recommend that the employer pay to the worker €4,000 in recognition of the worker carrying out these additional duties under protest but nevertheless performing the roles in full.

Industrial Relations Act / job description