Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Porter & Admin Support Coordinator

Health provider

Representatives

Cillian McGovern, B.L. instructed by Crushell & Co

 Employee Relations Manager

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 - 00001048

25/01/2023

The worker commenced employment as a porter in February 2020.  During the course of his employment various changes to his role occurred.  The worker sought to have his role regraded.  This was done in 2007 but he was not satisfied with the outcome.  The worker then sought further clarity in relation to his role and this.  A further evaluation took place in March 2023.  The worker has declined to accept the outcome and sign a new contract which would reflect the changes.  The employer believes that they have treated the worker fairly and agreed and supported the evaluation of his role.  The evaluation process was undertaken under the process agreed at national level between the trade unions and the health service employers.

The worker has worked for the employer for over 21 years.  He has undertaken his duties diligently and was flexible in taking on additional tasks.  The worker believes that he has been acting up in a higher role for a number of years, but the employer has failed to recognise this or provide him with a contract which would reflect his changed role.  In 2005 it was agreed that his role would be submitted to the job evaluation process, but this did not happen due to the suspension of the scheme in 2008.  In 2021 the worker notified the employer that he was now working “under protest”.  The worker also submits that a deal was reached in August 2021 that he would be regraded and paid on a new scale.  This has not happened. 

The worker also submits that this ongoing situation has had a number of implications for him:

·         The ongoing delays have caused him severe stress and anxiety.

·         The delays will have implications for his pension payments when he reaches retirement age.

·         As he is not classed as an administrative role he has lost out on promotional opportunities.

·         He has suffered a loss of income.

·         The worker’s manager approved his name badge which outlines that his role is significantly more than his initial porter role.

·         None of his issues have been dealt with in the evaluation process.

·         He has made every effort to have the issues brought to a conclusion, but he feels that he is being undermined, ignored and isolated.

The worker was originally employed as a porter in one of its facilities.  The worker’s role was upgraded in 2019 using an agreed Job Evaluation process which was known as the “Parallel Benchmarking Process”.  Despite a favourable outcome the worker continued to claim that his role should be remunerated at a higher level. 

An agreement was reached between the employer and SIPTU in 2022 it was agreed that the workers role and that of a colleague would be submitted through the Job Evaluation Scheme for Clerical Administration grades.  It was agreed that the employer would support this and seek to have the application prioritises.  The application was submitted in July 2022 and the results of the process was received in March 2023.  The worker received another favourable outcome which was that his role should be that of a Grade IV role.  The employer’s representative noted that the date of the upgrade is considered to be the date of the evaluation.  However, the employers Head of Service made a concession to backdate the upgrade to the date the evaluation form was submitted for evaluation.  The employer believes this was 08/10/2021.

The employer notes that the worker was offered a new contract to reflect the outcome of the job evaluation process.  The worker has refused to sign this contract and stated that he was taking legal advice.  The worker submitted his complaint form to the WRC in January 2023 which was in advance of the outcome of the evaluation process.  

The employer makes a number of additional points:

·         The worker has been treated fairly and in line with the agreed processes.

·         The rules of the evaluation process is a nationally agreed process, and the employer does not have any remit to alter these.

·         The job evaluation process works well and provides an independent and professional process.

·         There is no mechanism in the evaluation process to claim for any loss of earnings.

·         There is no acting up possible as “acting-up” arrangements ceased in 2013.  The worker did not submit any claim for regularisation at that time.

·         The employer is prepared to implement the outcome of the job evaluation process and to confirm the concession to have this implementation backdated to 08/10/2021.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions and documents presented to me by the parties.   This is a trade dispute referred by the Worker under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  By way of clarification there are no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this referral. At the hearing the Adjudication Officer clarified that this is a voluntary process and there is no formal evidence taken, and no witness evidence. In that context there are no findings of fact made.

The role of an Adjudicator in relation to disputes of this nature is to make a recommendation to try and resolve this dispute. 

At the heart of this dispute is a worker who had given over 21 years’ service to this employer.  It is clear that he has demonstrated a significant level of flexibility and he has taken on additional tasks due to the level of skill that he has.  It is clear that he has made a number of efforts to seek remuneration commensurate with the role.

The employer who is a public service employer acknowledges that the worker undertakes the various tasks and supported and assisted his application for evaluation.  The employer has made a number of concessions in relation to the evaluation process.   Significantly, they have supported his application for evaluation under the clerical administration evaluation scheme and also agreed to backdate any upgrade to the date of submission. 

The worker is currently paid as a porter and the salary for this role is €38,940.  The outcome of the job evaluation scheme was that he should be remunerated at a Grade IV level.  The move to a new scale is governed by what is known as “Starting Pay on Promotion”.  The rules of this process were outlined in a circular 10/71 which gave effect to the rules applicable moving to a new pay scale.  In the workers case he would “enter the new scale at the point nearest but not below existing pay plus one increment”. 

The employer has confirmed that the worker would move to a Grade IV on point 7 which is €41,881.

Having considered the matter I made the following recommendations which are issued due to the specific nature of this dispute.  I am recommending that the worker be regraded in line with the outcome of the Job Evaluation Role, i.e., Grade IV role. I am also recommending that this regrading be backdated to 30/08/2021.  I am also recommending that the employer place the worker on point eight of the Grade IV scale, €44,100.

I am recommending that the worker accept this recommendation in full and final settlement of this dispute and to confirm his acceptance to the employer within four weeks of the date of this determination.  On receipt of this I am recommending that the employer implement this recommendation no later than four weeks of the notification of the workers acceptance.