Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Contract Manager (2)

Government Body

Representatives

Philip Lee Philip Lee LLP. Company Representatives. Andrew Campbell (Trainee Solicitor, Philip Lee) Christian Doyle, BL instructed by Philip Lee Solicitors Patrick Walsh (Philip Lee Solicitors)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00052466 

30/08/2022

The Respondent is an independent Government Body. 

The Complainants are part of the “Building Momentum” Pay agreement and the government body say they are bound by it.

The Complainant 2, Contract Manager confirmed her dispute reference annual leave is withdrawn as it has been resolved.

Complainant 1, Contract Manager gave a personal statement and stated she has over 20 years’ experience in both the public and private sector within the nursing home industry, so she was aware of the Government body before she came to work there.  She was aware that there were contract managers and assumed that they were Assistant Principal/Principal Officer grade.

The Complainant stated she joined the Government body in 2018 she assumed that the role was higher than a Grade VII, based on what she knew of the details of the role.  When she moved into the contract manager role there was talk that the role was being upgraded but this was only office chat.

The Complainant stated she has reviewed the public sector competency framework and she is of the belief that the role of contract manager sits at Assistant Principal Grade. 

The Complainant asked that it be noted they are treated differently to other Grade VII’s within the organisation as they do not clock in and out and they are required to carry a work phone.

Complainant 2, Contract Manager gave a personal statement and stated that she has worked as a Contract Manager with the Government body since September 2018.  Prior to that, she worked for 30 years in the banking industry.  For the majority of that time, she worked as a manager analysing business accounts and approving credit for same.  She stated she has over 35 years’ experience in both public and private sector within the finance.

The Complainant stated upon first joining the Government body, it was clear that her colleagues in the same role had an issue with the work assigned at the grade of contract manager.  Having not worked in the public sector up to that point, she was resolved to make her own determinations on the matter.  She stated it subsequently became clear to her that many of the tasks assigned to her exceeded the expectations of a Grade VII officer and that an undergrade was indeed the case. 

The Complainant administrative errors were made and this further enhanced the case that multiple mistakes were made in the design of her contract, and that an error made in grading the contract manager role as she feels it should be regarded to Assistant Principal.

The Complainant stated she had reviewed the public sector competency framework and she is of the belief that the role of contract manager (previously called Account Manager) sits as Assistant Principal Grade.

The Complainant 2, Contract Manager asked for evaluation of her role as there is inconsistencies in her contract.

She stated the Contract Account Manager is most comparable role to their role.  She said negotiations of contractors would be AP level or above.

The Complainant 1, Contract Manager asked for an independent review of her role same as Complainant 2 also.

To conclude the trade dispute before me is specifically their request to have their roles re-evaluated independently ie it they request an independent evaluation of their roles as Contract Manager-Grade VII. They are of the view that the post of Contract Manager-Grade VII requires a systematic process of evaluation to assess whether their jobs grade is properly matched to its duties and responsibilities.

The representative stated the position of the respondent. He stated Complainant 2 joined the Government body on 13 August 2018 as a Grade V Administrator in the Audit and Quality Assurance Unit and was subsequently promoted to the position of Contract Manager Grade VII on 21 September 2020.

The representative stated Complainant 1 has been a Contract Manager Grade VII within the Respondent since 3 September 2018.

The representative stated the Respondent is a corporate body with functions and responsibilities as prescribed in Statutory Instrument 179 (Establishment Order) 2004 and Nursing Home Support Scheme Act 2009. 

The Respondent representative stated as is reflected in email correspondence between the parties attached to the Submissions, Complainant 1 and Complainant 2, requested an independent evaluation of their roles as contract manager Grade VII.  The Complainants have requested a job evaluation of their roles and have stated that it is their belief their roles sit at Assistant Principal Grade (roughly equivalent to grade VIII).

The representative stated the Director of Corporate Services, of the Respondent engaged with Complainant 1 and Complainant 2 regarding same.  He stated by email dated 6 May 2022, as follows:

“While we will continue to assess the resources available to the team and seek increased sanction, as appropriate, I understand you are seeking an independent evaluation of the role of Contract Manager to assess if the job wages match to its duties and responsibilities.  Under the Lansdowne Road Agreement and its successor, Building Momentum – A New Public Service Agreement 2021-2022, no sectoral or grade-based claims will be allowed outside this process during the lifetime of the Agreement.  Specifically, the Agreement states that “The parties reaffirm: that there will be no cost-increase in claims for improvements in pay or condition of employment by trade unions, Garda and Defence Forces Associations or employees during the period of the Agreement”.  This requirement means that undertaking an evaluation or roles is not allowed for under the Public Services Agreement and, there will be no prospect of any assessment impacting a roles grade.  In this context I do not consider that engaging in an independent assessment of the contract manager role would be an appropriate use of the government body resources.

I am sure that the resources available to the unit will continue to be kept under review to best support the team in delivering on this important work.”

The representative stated at paragraph 5.6.1 of the Building Momentum Public Service Agreement 2021-2022 (extended to 31 December 2023), no sectoral or grade-based claims will be allowed outside this process during the lifetime of the Agreement (and obviously the Complainants have benefitted from the Agreement).

The representative stated under both the PSSA and Building Momentum, the Complainants have benefited from the following collective agreed increases:

1% on 1 October 2018

1.75% on 1 September 2019

2% on 1 October 2020

1% on 1October 2021

1% on 1 February 2022

3% on 2 February 2022

1% on 1October 2022 and

2% on 1 March 2023

The representative stated the Complainants will also benefit from a further 1.5% on 1 October 2023. 

He stated the Director of Corporate Services engaged with colleagues on the issue of the request for a job evaluation sought, who confirmed that role evaluations are not permitted under the Building Momentum Agreement and that role evaluations should not be undertaken without the prior approval of DPER. The representative stated for completion, he contacted the Department in writing on 22 March 2023 and the Department’s position was reiterated in writing on the same date. The Departmental position is that the job evaluation as sought amounts to a cost increasing claim.

The Respondent representative stated the Government body is aware of the importance of the role of the Contract Manager.  The representative stated the organisation closely monitors the capacity of the Team to continue to deliver on this work and increases the resources of the team as required.  The representative stated the Respondent has increased resources, as permitted. 

The representative stated if the two Complainants wish to apply through open competition for a higher grade, then they can do so at the relevant time.

The representative for the Respondent stated they also referred to previous WRC IR cases and specifically ADJ-35454 which accepts it is not possible to have the job evaluation done as it would have knock on implications for others as it would be cost increasing claim also.

The representative stated the Corporate Services Director stated due to the current circumstances, Department sanction cannot be given to commence a job evaluation as requested.  He referred to the sanction issue to fill the posts which states “all posts sanctioned are subject to adherence to all relevant general directives, guidelines or circulars issued by Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER).

The respondent stated in the Building Momentum it states, “the parties agree that there will be no cost increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment by trade unions, Garda and Defence Force association, or employees during the period of the agreement.”.

Section 13 (1) and (2) of Industrial Relations Act, 1990 states the below.

13.—(1) The Minister may from time to time appoint a person who shall be known as and is in this Act referred to as a rights commissioner to carry out the functions assigned to him by this section.

13. - (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and

(ii) notify the Court of the recommendation.

(b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute—

(i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute, or

(ii) if a party to the dispute notifies the commissioner in writing that he objects to the dispute being investigated by a rights commissioner.

The Complainant 2, Contract Manager stated that there is a requirement for “prior formal approval” then the evaluation can occur per letter of 28 July 2021 from OPER.

The Respondent stated in the letter of 23 March 2023 in a letter from Department of Health they say no evaluations should occur in any of their agencies and this includes the Government body.

The Complainants stated the DEPR were not asked about the evaluation; just the Department of Health relied on by respondent.

The Respondent stated they don’t deal directly with DEPR they deal with the Department of Health who specifically stated no evaluations should occur.

The Respondent relies on the fact as stated in correspondence to the Complainants “Under the Lansdowne Road Agreement and its successor, Building Momentum – A New Public Service Agreement 2021-2022, no sectoral or grade-based claims will be allowed outside this process during the lifetime of the Agreement.  Specifically, the Agreement states that “The parties reaffirm: that there will be no cost-increase in claims for improvements in pay or condition of employment by trade unions, Garda and Defence Forces Associations or employees during the period of the Agreement”.  This requirement means that undertaking an evaluation or roles is not allowed for under the Public Services Agreement and, there will be no prospect of any assessment impacting a roles grade.  In this context I do not consider that engaging in an independent assessment of the contract manager role would be an appropriate use of the government body resources.”

The trade dispute therefore before me is specifically their request to have their roles re-evaluated independently ie it they request an independent evaluation of their roles as Contract Manager-Grade VII. They are of the view that the post of Contract Manager-Grade VII requires a systematic process of evaluation to assess whether their jobs grade is properly matched to its duties and responsibilities.

The above is the crux of this trade dispute and differing positions.

The Complainants are part of the “Building Momentum” pay agreement they have benefited from the pay increases related with same.

Specifically, this agreement states “the Parties reaffirm that: - there will be no cost-increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment by trade unions, Garda and Defence Force associations or employees during the period of the Agreement”.

I find that to embark on a regrading exercise would have implications for cost increases and it would also potentially have knock on effects as other employees may then request for their roles to be evaluated also and therefore this dispute not only impacts these two complainants but could have wider implications.  Therefore, I recommend that the revaluation does not progress at this time in line with the agreement in place that prohibits cost increasing claims.