Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Executive Chef

A Hospital

Representatives

SIPTU

 Employee Relations Manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00048430-001

01/02/2022

The employee was employed as an Executive Chef in the respondent Hospital. This dispute relates to the employee’s belief that she was entitled to be made ‘acting up’ from March 2020 until December 2021 and to receive the appropriate allowance as this is what happened on a previous occasion.

The complainant was employed as an Executive Chef in the Central Production Unit (CPU) in the respondent Hospital from March 1980 to March 2022.

The complainant carried out the role of the Catering Officer Grade 1 when the post was vacant from the 18th March 2020 to December 2021. Previously when she carried out this role in 2015, she received the temporary appointment payment for the entire period from Sept 2015 to August 2017. The same circumstances apply in this case and therefore the complainant is entitled to be treated in the same manner. The complainant complies with the guidelines for filling temporary appointment as set out in the HR Guidance document as a senior member of staff with over 40 years' experience and willing to do the job.

Around 2015/16 a reorganisation of the Catering department took place in respondent Hospital. This involved a review team included Facilities Manager, Catering Manager, Restaurant Supervisor, Distribution Supervisor and the Executive Chef (the complainant).

This reorganisation was about the management structure within the catering dept in the Hospital. it is the management position that the respondent was correctly paid at all times for the job that she did in line with her job description. She was employed as an Executive Chef at the hospital and paid at that grade. She was fully involved in the reorganisation of the structures and signed up to same.

In addition, before acting up can be considered Part b(iii) of the HR Guidance Document on Circular 17/2013 asks "Can the tasks performed by the previous post holder be sub-divided and shared by other staff at their current grades and levels of responsibility?” In line with this circular the tasks related to the temporary vacancy were assigned to other members of staff.

This dispute relates to the employee’s belief that she was entitled to be made ‘acting up’ from March 2020 until December 2021 and to receive the appropriate allowance.  The employee is relying on the fact that on a previous occasion in 2015 in similar circumstances this happened. The employee refers to her contract which states under the heading General, ‘To undertake such other duties as may be required from time to time and to act for other senior staff as required’.  This is clearly an enabling clause rather than a right and the key wording is ‘as required’. This can only be interpreted as at the request of management.  It must also be interpreted in the context of provisions of Circular 17/2013 detailed below.

The respondent states that there are different circumstances pertaining following reorganisation within the section of the hospital and that, in any event, the employee was not asked to carry out the tasks associated with the temporary vacancy as these were distributed among other staff.  The employer contends that it is a requirement under HR Guidance Document on Circular 17/2013 that, before acting up can be considered, there is an obligation on management to ask “Can the tasks performed by the previous post holder be sub-divided and shared by other staff at their current grades and levels of responsibility”.  The employer contends that as it was possible to distribute the tasks among other staff no ‘acting up’ was necessary. The employer seems to have been unaware of some of the tasks related to the vacant post being carried out by the employee, for example, in relation to organising rosters, meetings and orders without the assistance of the Catering Officer (the vacant post). 

The employee lodged a grievance in relation to this issue in February 2020, the outcome of which she appealed on two occasions.  The outcome of the final internal appeal was communicated to her in July 2021. It should have been apparent to her at that stage that management did not intend to proceed with an acting up arrangement, and, had she a difficulty with carrying out any additional duties relating to the vacant post, which were not comprehended by her job description, she could have highlighted this issue at that stage.

Having considered all of the circumstances of the case I do not think that the employee had an entitlement to be made acting up for the duration of the vacancy and that management complied with the provisions of the guiding Circular.  However, I believe she did carry some additional/unsupported responsibilities and I recommend a once off payment of €1000 in respect of these.

I recommend that the employer pay the employee €1000 in full and final settlement of this claim

Acting up arrangements