Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An administrative worker

A Hospital

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 - 00001308

24/04/2023

At the outset of the hearing it was agreed that the appropriate respondent was the employer and not the individual manager named in the complaint.

The worker had been in receipt of an allowance in respect of training duties which was deducted from her retrospection following an award recommended by an Adjudication Officer.

The worker had pursued a previous complaint (June 2020) arising from her being seconded to work on the new IPMS System in May 2005.  At this time, she was a Clerical Officer and she received an Acting Grade 5 Allowance until April 2008 when the IPMS system was implemented. The Employer ceased the Acting Allowance in April 2008 as it was deemed the IPMS System had been implemented.  Thereafter the worker remained working in the Systems Department and was additionally tasked to provide Training on the IPMS system for which received a Training Allowance.   

As the worker did not return to her substantive Clerical Officer role and essentially continued undertaking the same IPMS work as she had done during the Project period, (apart from the additional aspect of the Training) she attempted to pursue the matter through the Employer Grievance Procedure.  Her attempts stalled at her Stage 2 Hearing, when the General Manager failed to issue a decision.  She referred her complaint to the WRC who upheld her complaint that she should have rightly been upgraded under the employer’s long-term Acting Scheme in October 2013, as she had continued to undertake the IPMS work.

The worker’s complaint is that in January 2022 the Employer, without notice or agreement, ceased her Training Allowance – this allowance had been approved yearly by her line manager and paid uninterrupted to her for 14 years (from May 2008 to December 2021) €1,848 per year - €153.77 per month.

The Employer also incorrectly deducted the Training Allowance from back monies due to the worker arising from her successful WRC Case – a total of €27,677.92 was deducted.  It is of note the Adjudicator was silent on the matter of the Training Allowance as there was no issue in respect of it at the time.   Indeed, in the Employer’s Submission to the WRC at the time of her earlier 2021 complaint, they stated “She continued to provide IPMS training for any members of staff in (the hospital) who were required to use the system.  She was paid a training allowance for this and indeed this allowance remains active.”  The worker was requested to undertake this work after her Acting Grade 5 allowance ceased and it had not formed part of her previous Acting Grade 5 role.

The worker raised a complaint under the Employer Grievance Procedure as she believed the Employer incorrectly ceased the Training Allowance, incorrectly clawed back the Training Allowance and appallingly failed to discuss or consult with her prior to these actions.              

The worker was in total shock when she received her payslip and saw the deduction – she had no inkling or warning this was to happen and when she discussed it with her Line Manager she advised the worker that she too was unaware and no one had given her prior notice either. The Line Manager said she would raise the matter with the Employee Relations Manager whom she was due to meet and advised her via email that he stated (The worker) probably should have been informed in advance of the training allowance being deducted and explained that the allowance was given to her as a compensatory payment whilst the worker was paid as a Clerical Officer.  That during the previous WRC hearing the Adjudicator upgraded the worker back to when she took up the position of Trainer (May 2008) and so it would be double payment if the worker were to be paid the training allowance as well as being paid Grade 5.

In actual fact, the Adjudicator had recommended the re-instatement of the Acting Grade 5 Allowance from the date of its termination in 2008 and made no mention of the Training Allowance. The Training Allowance and Training of staff was initiated only after the Acting Grade V role was deemed by the Employer side to have finished. 

 The Worker hasn’t been provided with any documentary evidence to support the removal of her allowance at the time or since then.  The employer’s Consolidated Pay scales sets out pay and allowances and conditions for the payment of allowances – including Trainer’s Allowance. The Following allowances were abolished for new beneficiaries (ie a new beneficiary is defined as a new entrant to the Public Service at 1/2/2012 or an existing employee not in receipt of the allowance at 31/1/2012).  The Worker was in receipt of her Training Allowance well inside these timeframes 

The Employer (again) failed to follow their own Grievance Procedure.  This included managers declining to hear Grievances at Stage 1 and Stage 2.  Stage 1 Hearing was heard on the 12th December 2022 - Grievance raised on 6/10/2022.  Stage 1 decision was issued the day after the Hearing 13th December 2022 and advised that Stage 2 Appeal was to the HR Manager at the hospital.   The worker wrote to the hospital HR Manager  on the 20th December 2022 appealing the Stage 1 decision.                

The HR Manager. did not hear Stage 2 and the worker was instead referred to Head of HR at a different hospital who arranged the Stage 2 Hearing on the 2nd February 2023.  The Hearing took place as scheduled via Zoom, however despite repeated enquiries from the Worker and a promise to issue a decision, the employer failed to issue one or have any further contact with the Worker.

In unilaterally deciding to clawback the IT Allowance; to cease the IT Allowance and to have zero prior consultation or discussion about these actions with the worker, she genuinely wondered if she was being victimised for having previously successfully pursued her case to the WRC as she cannot make sense of how someone in authority (unknown to her) would initiate such actions without any regard to the person on the receiving end.

The fact that yet again, in pursuit of her right to complain and progress her complaint through the Employer Grievance Procedure, she has had to push to have her complaint heard in a timely manner and attempt to get a decision following her Stage 2 hearing.   She questions why and how the Employer has failed to follow its own process, with seemingly little consideration on how this impacts so negatively on the worker.

The manner in which this whole issue has been dealt with, from the clawback; the cessation of the Training Allowance; zero prior consultation; and showing such little regard for the Employer’s own Grievance Procedure or the implications (financial or otherwise) for the worker, displays (intentionally or otherwise)  total disrespect for staff or agreed procedural processes.

The Worker is seeking a reinstatement of the Training Allowance as she continues to provide the Training; a refunding of the amount clawed-back and an acknowledgement that the Employer’s actions in this regard were wholly inappropriate, as was their failure to adhere to their Grievance Procedure for the second consecutive time in respect of the Worker.

The worker is also seeking a measure of compensation for the stress, frustration and disrespect shown to her by the appalling failure of the Employer in its handling of her issue and its failure yet again to adhere to its own Procedures.

The claim as outlined in the referral is that the worker had previous recommendation of upgrade and retrospection upheld in October 2021 but that the employer had deducted IT training allowance from the worker without any consultation.  The worker is seeking repayment of the training allowance.

The worker submitted a claim to WRC in 2021 regarding remuneration of work she continued to do at a Grade V level following cessation of the acting Grade V allowance in 2008.

WRC recommendation dated 20th October 2021 stated that the worker was entitled to have her Acting Grade V allowance reinstated from the date of its termination in 2008 up to the date of her regularisation in accordance with the terms of the Circular covering these arrangements.

At the time of this WRC, it was also noted that the worker had progressed an application under the employer’s Job Evaluation Scheme.  The result of the Job Evaluation Scheme was issued on 19th October 2021 where it was evaluated that the worker’s post be upgraded to a Grade V.   The worker’s application under the Job Evaluation Scheme included a breakdown of the training role she was carrying out at that time.

The worker at the time was paid a training allowance by the employer in recognition of her work being done at a higher grade.  It should also be noted that from 2005 until 2008, when the worker was paid the acting Grade V allowance, there was no additional training allowance paid at that time. For example, if a staff nurse acts up as a CNM and gets acting allowance, that acting allowance is withdrawn if she is successful in getting a permanent CNM job.  This analogy is identical in this case.

Therefore, given that there was a recognition and recommendation from the WRC that the worker be upgraded to a Grade V and that the upgrade was backdated, the payment of the training allowance was no longer applicable and was deducted once the Grade V regrading was actioned.  The worker was informed of same by the HR Manager on the 17th February 2022. 

On this basis, the worker subsequently implemented the Grievance Procedure in October 2022.  Stage 1 & 2 were not upheld. 

In summary, the employer is satisfied that the worker has been remunerated appropriately since 2008 and she received the relevant back pay in May 2022.  Both the recommendations of the WRC and the Job Evaluation Scheme have been implemented accordingly. 

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

The primary issue in this complaint is that the employer, following an adjudication recommendation in favour of the worker, deducted from the arrears due, an amount equivalent to a separate allowance paid to the worker during that period in respect of training duties. The employer also ceased payment of this allowance. The employer said that the allowance in respect of training was as a compensation for the worker being graded at Grade 3 level without an ‘acting up’ allowance at Grade 5. The employer may genuinely have intended to give the training allowance as some sort of compensation as the worker was in effect being paid on a lower salary than the value of the role warranted.  However, there is nothing to show that the worker had been made aware of this either formally or informally.

If the employer was concerned as to the intention of the adjudicating offer vis the training allowance the employer should have either sought clarification or appealed the recommendation.  Unilaterally making such a substantial deduction should not have happened.  Had the employer engaged with the worker on the issue in advance of the deduction, the relevant clarification/appeal could have been sought by either party.  It was unreasonable for the employer to assume that the worker would know that the recommendation would be implemented in such a way.

It is incumbent on the employer to make it clear what duties are included in the substantive contract.  Generic job descriptions are not helpful in this regard and there is nothing in the generic job description given to the worker at the time of her regrading that suggests that the training duties were comprehended.  On the face of it training appears to have been a substantial component of the documentation supporting the worker’s claim under the job evaluation scheme.  Therefore, it is likely that the decision to upgrade considered training to be an ongoing part of the role and not an additional temporary responsibility which might attract an allowance. This begs the question was the post evaluated factoring in duties which were not a fundamental part of the role but rather were ancillary and temporary in nature?  This issue should have been clarified by the appropriate manager signing off on the application for regrading.

The employer has argued that this is the only administration post attracting the training allowance and that to continue it would be somewhat anomalous.  However, this did not prevent the employer applying the allowance to the post in the past and therefore it should continue to be  paid for as long as it is expected that he worker carry out this function. It is open to the employer to cease the requirement to provide the training and to then cease paying the associated allowance.  The worker is now a grade V – a generic grade – and therefore can be reassigned to other administrative roles/duties not entailing training thereby ending any anomaly.

The handling of the grievance process was below the required standard and I note the employer’s apology in that regard.

In all of the circumstances I recommend that the worker be paid the amount deducted from her arrears in relation to the training allowance and that, for as long as she is required to carry out the training function, the allowance continue to apply.

Training allowance deducted from  WRC award