Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Public Sector Organisation

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-00057744

14/10/2021

The complainant has been employed in the permanent role of Assistant Project Manager since 1999. Prior to his permanent appointment he worked in a temporary capacity at a higher level for a short period.

In October 2009, due to the retirement of a colleague at the same level, he was re-assigned to undertake this role along with his previous role.

In or around 2013, he queried the grading of his post with line management. On the 28th February 2017, he wrote formally to his line manager setting out the background and additional duties and responsibilities he had taken on.

He wrote to the Human Resources Department on 5th January 2018 setting out a more detailed case about the grading of his post. On 15th October 2019, he again set out the background and detail of his duties in seeking a review of the grading of his post.

In July 2021, he raised his grading issue under the formal grievance procedure. Although there was some engagement and response from his employer on 14th September 2021, the issue remained in dispute, and he referred the dispute to the WRC in October 2021.

One of the worker’s claims is that although he was at a higher grade doing temporary work for the employer back in 1998, this was not considered when he was appointed to the permanent post in 1999/2000. He only recently discovered through an FOI request that a case could have been made to be appointed to a higher grade on his permanent appointment.

A second claim is that the worker is seeking his post to be upgraded to a higher grade based on additional duties which he has taken on and which he has set out in submissions to line management and the Human Resources Department. He formally made submissions to management from 2017 although as he first raised these issues in 2013, he is seeking a retrospective regrading to this date.

Related to the above, the worker is seeking compensation for the mishandling of his job review claim and formal grievance due to the inordinate delays and inadequate engagement from management.

The employer contests all aspects of the worker’s claims.

The worker agreed to the terms of his initial appointment in or around 2000. He was employed on a permanent basis and fulfilled this role for over 20 years as per his contract without any matters being raised about his salary scale on appointment.

In relation to the grading claim, the employer submits that there is no mechanism to carry out a job evaluation for the complainant’s senior grade and that these matters are subject to collective agreements with unions that concern pay and grading issues.

On the grievance issue, the employer’s position is that pay related issues are not covered by the internal grievance procedure. The employer submits that on the receipt of the grading review submission in 2017, the worker was informed by line management that there was nothing that they could do in the absence of a job evaluation scheme. Furthermore, when the grievance was submitted in July 2021 there was a response from management that the job evaluation scheme did not encompass his grade.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The parties have also referred to a range of Adjudication and Labour Court recommendations. I have reviewed these cases although typically each industrial relations dispute has its own specific facts. Indeed, most of the recommendations that have been brought to my attention refer to the fact that the decisions are based on their own unique circumstances and should have no bearing on other disputes.

Appointment 1999/2000

The first dispute relates to the initial appointment back in 1999/2000 and the salary agreed between the parties at that time. Although this matter goes back some time, I have reviewed the documentation submitted. The worker has set out that there may have been a strong basis that he could have been appointed to a higher level based on his previous grading and salary.

The reality though is that the terms of his permanent appointment were agreed at that time and there was no grievance raised at any stage until now.

I do not recommend that contractual terms that have been in place for over 20-years should now be altered or reviewed retrospectively.

Grading Review & Grievance Procedure

The worker’s second issue has been ongoing informally since 2013 and formally since 2017 and again relates to the grading of his post. It is clear from the submissions that this issue has been pursued continuously by the worker in making the case to line management and the Human Resources Department from 2017 onwards. He followed the organisation’s procedures in commencing the formal grievance process in 2021. I do not agree with the employer’s assertion that the issues raised were outside of the grievance procedure particularly when the procedure itself states that issues can be raised on:

·         Allocation of work

·         Assignment of duties

On 5th January 2018, well before the formal grievance was lodged in July 2021, the worker wrote to the Human Resources Department stating that ‘Each month I am being asked to take on work that had previously been done by other people. I have pulled my weight for the past twenty years but unless I receive proper recognition for all of the additional roles and responsibilities I have taken on and am being asked to take on I’m afraid that I must inform you that I will not be taking on any more extra work.’

There was a very limited response from line management and the Human Resources Department from 2018 and then from July 2021 when the formal grievance was commenced. I do accept that there were limitations on whether the grievance could be resolved fully to the worker’s satisfaction although this does not excuse the lack of decision making and engagement on the issues raised.

The employer response can be summed up as ‘our hands are tied and there is nothing that can be done due to the lack of a job evaluation for the grade’. The history of the workers issues went back to 2009 on his assignment to another role along with his own. He was assigned further duties in subsequent years which caused frustration and the declaration in 2018 from the worker that he could not take on anymore.

From July 2021, even though the grievance was a live issue, the grievance procedure was not adhered to by the employer. One of the principles of the procedure is that every effort will be made to address complaints quickly and fairly and at the lowest possible level at which the matter can be resolved. Each stage of the procedure then outlines that a decision will be made within a defined period. After a meeting on 22nd November 2021, a new job specification was to issue by the manager to the worker. This did not issue, and the worker then referred matters to the National Director of Human Resources in August 2022. By this time, there was still no new job specification.

Furthermore, there was no previous decision along the lines of what was set out at the hearing and in the employer’s submission at 4.12 that the duties performed and continued to be performed are not those of a managerial role. There was no information made available at the hearing that the employer had articulated this view in any earlier decision as the grievance moved through the different stages. 

Despite the best efforts of the worker in processing his grievance, he was not afforded a reasoned response by his employer over an extended period. Due to the lack of a detailed response and new job specification as promised, the worker was sent from pillar to post and was not afforded his employer’s view of his grievance until the WRC hearing took place.

A reasoned decision and new job specification could have reduced the distressed suffered by the worker. Due to the mishandling of the grievance which caused considerable unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the worker, I recommend that the respondent pay the worker compensation of €8,000. For clarity, this sum is not pay or arrears of pay as it is compensation for adverse treatment due to the breaches of the formal grievance procedure as set out.

Evaluation

Strong representations were made on behalf of the worker seeking a recommendation of upgrading or in the alternative a job evaluation. I have considered this and reviewed the range of industrial relations recommendations brought to my attention.

I do not recommend an upgrading and/or a job evaluation as where this has occurred in other industrial relations recommendations, there was already an evaluation carried out and/or an acceptance by management of some merit in the case. As per 4.12 referred to above, there is no employer acceptance that the grading is incorrect. Also, these matters stray into the collective bargaining process and rates of pay which are outside of my jurisdiction.          

Grievance, job evaluation