Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Public Body

Representatives

Jay Power SIPTU

 N/A

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-00048762

22/02/2022

The Worker commenced her employment with the Employer on 3 December 2018. She stated that when she started, she should have been placed on an appropriate point on a pay scale which recognised her prior experience in the public sector since 2013 and that she should be compensated retrospectively for the underpayment since she started with the Employer in 2018.  

The Worker was employed by another public body from 2013 prior to starting with the Employer in 2018. In her current role, the Employer placed her on point 1 of the Clerical Officer pay scale when she started her employment and failed to recognise her previous experience in a very similar role in the public sector prior to this. Specifically, the Worker stated that she should have been placed on point 6 of the Clerical Officer pay grade when she started with the Employer and that she should be compensated retrospectively for the underpayment she has borne since she started with the Employer in 2018.   

The Worker has been employed as an Administrator since 3 December 2018 and was appointed following an open competition on point 1 of the Clerical Officer pay scale. SIPTU queried if the Worker was on the correct point of the scale in November 2021 given that she had previously worked in another state body on a higher rate of pay. Having queried the matter with the relevant Government department, the Employer was informed that her previous role could not be considered as analogous to that of Clerical Officer. It was also highlighted that Circular 08/2019 stated that “for a change in grade to be considered a promotion, the normal maximum of the new grade must be greater than the normal maximum of the officer’s current grade” and that the top of the pay scale the Worker had been on in her previous role was higher than that of the grade she was on in her subsequent position.

Having heard the submissions of the parties, I must have regard to Circular 08/2019 which states that “for a change in grade to be considered a promotion, the normal maximum of the new grade must be greater than the normal maximum of the officer’s current grade”. I note that in this case, the maximum of the Worker’s new pay scale, namely the clerical officer pay scale, was lower than the maximum of the pay scale she was on in her role with her former employer.

Having regard to the provisions of Circular 08/2019, I cannot consider the change in grade which arose when she began her role with the Employer to be a promotion and find therefore that she was placed on the appropriate point of the Clerical Officer scale, namely point 1, when she started work.

I cannot make a recommendation that is favourable to the Worker for the reasons set out above.