Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Supervisor

Health service provider

Representatives

Forsa

Employer HR and Finance 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 - 00000271

16/05/2022

 The worker has presented a dispute concerning the employer’s refusal to classify his upgraded position as permanent.

Discussions between the employer and the union failed to produce an acceptable result for the worker.

He works in the design and print area of the employer’s service.

The worker has been employed with the health service provider since 1995 working in the print and design section of the service.

In 2013 he was appointed to the position of a Supervisor in Charge, a Grade 5 officer position.

In October 2103 he commenced acting up in the role of Acting Manager, Grade 6.

He applied in March 2019 to have his substantive Grade 5 post evaluated in line with the employer’s agreed Job Evaluation Scheme. He satisfied the application criteria

He was interviewed and succeeded in achieving Grade 7 status.

The scheme evaluators informed him that based on the functions attaching to the role he was performing, he was to be moved up two grades to the rank of Grade 7, effective 22 March 2019.

 The Evaluator wrote to the Health service provider on 28/9/2020 as follows:

“The outcome of the evaluation, based on the criteria, scoring matrix, assessed the post that (he) was on at the time of the evaluation and deemed it to be of Grade 7 value.”.

The job evaluators’ job assessment was quality assured on two occasions and their ranking was upheld.

The employer offered the worker the Grade 7 contract with a Grade 7 salary, but the post was classified as temporary notwithstanding the fact that his previous Grade 5 post was permanent. The worker declined to sign this temporary contract. He seeks a Grade 7 permanent position.

The worker is performing at Grade 7 level but is only getting paid at Grade 5 level. The worker is the only person in Grade 7 in this department. Its functions are permanent and will remain so.

 The remaining staff are in Grade 5 positions.

The Union representing the worker have never seen an upgrading leading to the classification of the post as temporary.

The worker seek a permanent contract for the worker effective from 22/3/2019.

The employer requests the Adjudicator to reject the worker’s claim for a permanent contract in the Grade 7 position.

The employer accepts the outcome of the evaluation exercise, namely that the worker’s rightful Grade, based on his responsibilities is that of a Grade 7. They are willing to pay him the Grade 7 salary effective from 22/3/2019, the date of the upgrade. However, the agreed evaluation scheme cannot confer permanency on a post where permanency does not already exist in that post. The evaluators in their recommendation of 27/6/2019 noted that the appointment to the position prior to it being upgraded was temporary and did not recommend that the upgraded post should be permanent. The evaluators acknowledged that they themselves did not have the authority to decide on the status of the appointment- temporary or permanent.

The employer accepts that they have never seen a upgrading, resulting in the post to which the worker is upgraded being classified as temporary.

The employer accepts that the design and printing function, the functions of the upgraded post are permanent and not temporary.

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

The regrading of the post held by the worker to a Grade 7   is accepted.

The temporary nature of the appointment to the upgraded Grade 7 post is the issue.

It is accepted that no employee, in receipt of an upgrading, has ever had their status changed from permanent to temporary, contrary to what is proposed for this worker.

There is only one Grade 7 in the design and print department.

The functions of print and design are permanent functions. There is nothing temporary about this service as the employer intends to continue it.

No argument was presented as to how conferring permanent status on this post would have wider implications for the employer or how the reclassification of the upgraded post as permanent would conflict with any regulations or circulars or interests. Nor was I advised as to what would be disturbed in confirming the worker’s permanency in the Grade 7 post.

It would be totally counterproductive for a worker to avail of the upgrading options if the result led to a reclassification of the worker’s long established permanent status to one of a temporary status with all of the inherent uncertainty accompanying such a change.

I was given no valid or substantial reason as to why the regrading and a permanent appointment could not co-exist.

It seems a unique situation has arisen.

I recommend that the worker is given a contract for a Grade 7 post in a permanent capacity with a Grade 7 salary effective from 22 March 2019.

Regrading; permanent status.