LCR22766

1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No ADJ-0038041, CA-00049433-001

BACKGROUND:

2.The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 9 March 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 8 February the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

“Having considered the arguments outlined by both parties and having regard to all of the

circumstances, I do not recommend in favour of the worker.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 30 May 2023.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Worker from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00038041, dated 8 February 2023) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). The Worker’s Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 9 March 2023. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 30 May 2023.

The Dispute

The Worker has been employed as a Social Care Worker by TUSLA Child and Family Agency (‘the Employer’) since 4 September 2017, based in the North Dublin area, supporting families and young people as a member of a dedicated service team. The team currently comprises a Service Manager and three Social Care Workers.

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that she has regularly been performing duties that form part of the job description for the Social Care Leader grade. She is seeking to have this acknowledged and to have her position regraded and remunerated according to the Social Care Leader pay scale. It is the Worker’s submission that there is no difference between the work that she carries out and that carried out by three Social Care Leaders (two of whom have been transferred to other services and one who is on long-term sick leave) whom she previously worked with in her current role.

The Worker exhausted all stages of the Employer’s internal grievance procedure before referring the within dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Employer’s Submission

It is submitted on behalf of the Employer that that the within appeal is misconceived for the following reasons:

• 
  •The issue of regrading is a collective issue and therefore not properly before the Court as an individual dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969;

  •The Worker’s claim for regrading is a cost-increasing claim and, therefore, prohibited under current national agreements; and

  •The Employer is currently engaged in a process with the F?rsa Trade Union to review Social Care structures nationally.

Decision

It is evident from the Employer’s submission to the Court that the Worker is a highly regarded and dedicated member of her team. Her belief that she is performing duties proper to a higher grade that that in which she is employed is perfectly understandable in circumstances where two team members (in a relatively small, specialised team) who had been employed at that higher grade have been transferred elsewhere and a third is absent on long-term sick leave and there has been no decrease in the demands on the service.

However, the Court nevertheless finds that the Worker’s claim for regrading is not well-founded. The issue of regrading has collective implications and cannot, therefore, be considered by the Court in the context of an appeal in a single-worker dispute. In this context, the Court notes the engagement currently underway between the Employer and F?rsa at a national level.

Finally, the Worker’s claim is also cost-increasing and prohibited byBuilding Momentum.

The Worker’s appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AR	______________________
08 June 2023	Deputy Chairman