Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Hospital Worker

A Hospital

Representatives

Cillian McGovern instructed by Crushell & Co Solicitors

 IBEC

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 - 00002877

19/07/2024

The background to this complaint lies in a very substantial re-organisation in the respondent which including outsourcing much of the work previously undertaken by the complainant.

 This resulted in changes to the complainant’s job and a very significant reduction in the complainant’s income.

The complainant stated on the complaint form only that he was seeking a recommendation from the WRC that my role be properly evaluated to ensure that my rank properly corresponds with the responsibilities that I previously enjoyed.

In his claim form to the WRC, the complainant states that he is seeking a “recommendation from the WRC that my role be properly evaluated to ensure that my rank properly corresponds with the responsibilities that I previously enjoyed”.

The issue has been ongoing since 2021.

Therolereviewprocesshasbeeninitiatedon22ndDecember 2021. This was to ensure that the complainant’s remunerationreflectedhiscurrentdutiesandresponsibilities.

However, despite attempts to engage in the development of a formal job description with the involvement of three separate union representatives, the complainant has disengaged from the process, thereby hindering its progression.

It is the respondents prerogative to define the roles and responsibilities necessary to fulfil its operational and strategic needs. This includes specifying both core duties and any additional tasks that may be required.

The complainant has been fulfilling his role since May 2000, with additional responsibilities added over time in line with his contract. In 2008, he took on additional duties in respect of bed maintenance.

The respondent has consistently sought to address his concerns regarding the scope of his role and initiated a process of a job review with full engagement with him, seeking his inputs in process of developing a comprehensive job description. This included several meetings with him and his Union Representatives.

However, the complainant disengaged with the process and is now raising new issues following all the constructive meetings at local level. This too, has been consistent throughout the correspondence with the employee’s trade union representatives.

The matter of his remuneration was also referred to the WRC in May 2023. At that time, it was agreed that the issue would be addressed through a local resolution process, with the involvement of both union and employer.

This was designed to ensure that the complainant’s role and responsibilities were properly evaluated, and that adjustments to his pay etc. would be in line with the outcome of the evaluation. Unfortunately, despite this agreed pathway he once again disengaged from the process, preventing the job description from being finalised, which is the pre-cursor to completing a job evaluation.

The complainant’s repeated refusal or failure to engage in the role review process has created significant obstacles to the resolution of this issue . and any perceived delay in evaluating the Complainant’s role is due to his own lack of engagement in the formal process, rather than any reluctance on the part of the employer. It is well established that both the employer and the employee must engage constructively in resolving disputes through established procedures.

The respondent requests that the WRC encourage the complainant to engage constructively with the process, so that a resolution can be achieved and any concerns regarding his role, rank, and responsibilities can be addressed in a fair and transparent manner via local level discussions.

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

Unsurprisingly the complainant was unhappy about the substantial changes referred to above, given their very significant impact on his earnings, (loss of overtime) or at least if he did not indicate his unhappiness at the time he certainly became very unhappy subsequently.

There was evidence of consultation with the complainant at the time and prior to the changes, offers of re-training etc.

It is not in dispute that the complainant’s earnings fell as a result of the outsourcing of work previously undertaken by him on overtime. It was a significant reduction as may be seen above.

However, as a result of a previous referral to the WRC (which did not go to hearing) it was agreed that the parties would engage at local level. This was especially intended to address the issues which are the subject of this referral.

The respondent submitted above that it commenced this process but that the complainant ‘disengaged’ from the process.

He confirmed this at the hearing, and it is not in dispute. It appears that when he realised that he might not get exactly what he was looking for he opted out and immediately instructed solicitors.

This breaches all known principles and pre-conditions of a referral under this legislation to the WRC. It is a fundamental requirement that all local workplace level options and processes have been exhausted before a worker will get a hearing at the WRC.

The complainant needs to return to discussions with his employer with a willingness to enter into a meaningful exploration of options to resolve outstanding issues between them, bearing in mind that the changes in his working conditions cannot be undone and he needs to set his expectations accordingly.

The narrative above suggests that the complainant will have to undertake some significant reality checking.

And of course, the employer needs to enter the discussions in a similar frame of mind. If need be, the services of a facilitator with good industrial relations experience might add some value to their efforts. It should quickly become clear whether they are likely to bear fruit or not.

Strictly speaking in these circumstances, the complainant has no right of audience, but given that my recommendation here is only that he return to discussions with his employer, that does not so much overlook that requirement as confirm it.

Workplace procedures