Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Hospital

Representatives

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 - 00000648

08/09/2022

Overview of Complaint: Complainant was paid at incorrect pay grade and job evaluation process was flawed.

The Complainant was working in the hospital and is paid at a Grade VI level however she had work responsibilities that were more commensurate to a Grade VII level. She applied for her work to be evaluated under the Job Evaluation Scheme in December 2018 however the evaluation was not conducted until December 2021 and the evaluation process was conducted by way of telephone interview when the Complainant was an in patient in the hospital. The interview was also procedurally defective insofar as it was not conducted in compliance with agreed JES procedures.

The Complainant seeks to be upgraded to a Grade VII level and seeks compensation for the years that she did Grade VII work but was paid a Grade VI salary and also for the delayed, unfair and procedurally defective JES process.

The Respondent accepts that for a number of years the Complainant has being paid at a Grade VI level however she had work responsibilities that are more commensurate to a Grade VII level. The Respondent accepts that the Job Evaluation of the Complainant’s work took place but the assertions of delay and improper/ inappropriate interview procedures fall outside the Respondent’s control. While the Complainant’s application for a job evaluation was made in December 2018, the JES scheme does not permit retrospective findings and the Respondent is bound to the date that the JES outcome was decided, ie December 2021.

The Respondent wishes to acknowledge the high standards both of work and duty that the Complainant has always observed. She is considered to be much highly valued member of staff.

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

The Job Evaluation Scheme (JES) process in the Complainant’s specific case was flawed in that it was delayed; she had no advance notice that she was to be interviewed by telephone; the interview process inappropriately took place whilst she was an inpatient in a public hospital ward. Additionally, there was no evidence that there was a second person on the call during the course of the telephone interview which is in breach of the nationally agreed JES process. I find this all to be entirely unsatisfactory.  

The Respondent accepts the process was flawed; however, this was outside their control.  The Respondent acknowledges the employee has been disadvantaged by this process. The Respondent also accepts the JES application was made in December 2018, but cannot agree to retrospection outside the JES rules, even if they accept the Complainant was working at Grade VII level for a considerable time prior to her application.

The Respondent also acknowledges that had the JES not been flawed, the Complainant would have been paid at Grade VII pay level from the date of her JES interview 7th October 2021.

In light of these findings I recommend that the JES outcome be set aside. I further recommend that the Complainant is upgraded to Grade VII effective from the 7th October 2021, her date of interview and that compensation in the sum of €10,000 is paid to the Complainant to reflect the considerable period of time she has worked at a higher level and the stress that the flawed process has caused to her and to bring this dispute to a final conclusion.