Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Health Care

Representatives

Peter D Jones

Peter D Jones & Company Solicitor

 HR Specialist

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00053805

22/11/2020

Since 2009 the Complainant states that his duties have expanded to the role of a clerical grade 5 role.

The worker stated that his role had expanded very significantly when he was transferred to the team who had to establish a new primary care centre. His job can’t be evaluated as he is classed as a caretaker; however, he is now fulfilling a much bigger role.

There is no facility to evaluate this role and there is no opportunity to provide a responsibility allowance. The role has been reviewed on several occasions and it is not the employer’s position that the role has expanded that would warrant a promotional upgrade.

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

The worker’s previous manager stated that for several years he had performed at a higher grade level. She had primary responsibility for opening the primary care centre and could not have done so under very significant time pressures; without requiring the worker to take on more responsibilities.  These duties were required and continued.

There is no job evaluation process open to the worker. Although the worker had carried out and continued to carry out clerical/administrative duties there was no job evaluation process open to him unless he was promoted to a clerical role. This is a catch 22 position. He is carrying out the duties of such a role according to his previous manager and as he is graded a caretaker his actual role cannot be evaluated. That is unfair. If others have access to such a process, failure to apply the same or similar process is manifestly unfair.

In March 2019 it was confirmed to the worker that there was no formal job evaluation framework open to him.

Under the supervision of his manager, the worker began organising and setting up the primary care centre. He was informed that his job description would be updated formally.

However, since his previous manager left the primary care centre, it is alleged that there is an attempt to roll back the clock and take away duties from him. This is denied.

The worker argues that his role has expanded from a caretaker one to a role where he is responsible for operational and administrative duties within the primary care centre.

Several emails have been opened by key contacts that also corroborate that the worker is the main point of contact for operational matters.  These emails are from personnel in senior roles.

On the balance of probabilities, the worker is performing a role much expanded than the caretaker role that he was initially recruited for.

The employer arising from formal agreements states that it is not in position to pay a responsibility payment.

I determine that on the facts the role of the worker has in fact expanded and he is no longer just fulfilling a caretaker role. His role is more complex, demanding and of greater responsibility than previously. It has in fact expanded and should be regraded to the next promotional clerical grade role.

The exact point on that promotional scale should be determined in line with the organisation’s policy.

The documents opened in support of his case show that his role had expanded very significantly; dated September 2020 and another supporting email dated 12th of November 2020. This means that his role as affirmed by this manager and other key personnel had expanded incrementally from 2017. In those circumstances I recommend that backdating should be effective from the 1st of January 2019.

Job evaluation-Expanded role