Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Manager

A Healthcare Organisation

Representatives

Shane Lambert (Fórsa Trade Union)

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 - 00001731

30/08/2023

The worker was initially recruited in 1984. He has held various areas of responsibility since he commenced employment. Since 2013 he was assigned as National Lead for FOI. It was considered a senior management role in the organisation.

The worker’s union representative stated that a situation arose whereby the worker was holding a position and discharging duties whilst not being appropriately recognised for same. It was stated that discussions took place in early 2017 between the worker’s union and the employer with a view to bringing a resolution to the matter. In this regard, an agreement was reached that there would be an ad hoc individual job evaluation process to determine as to what level the worker’s role should be recognised. It was further agreed that a well known IR practitioner would carry out the evaluation process. It was stated that the IR practitioner was highly respected by both sides and the parties agreed to be bound by that process.

It was stated that a decision on the evaluation issued on 28 December 2017 which recommended that the worker’s position be regraded to the level of functional officer/General Manager. The worker expected that the outcome of the evaluation would be implemented as had been agreed but despite several exchanges, implementation of the collective agreement was never given effect. Various issues happened in the intervening period including Covid but regrettably the agreement was not implemented. The worker’s union representative stated that extensive efforts have been made to resolve the dispute including a lengthy conciliation process but such discussions were unsuccessful.

The employer has accepted that the worker was discharging these duties as far back as 2005 and  the worker should be designated in post at the level recommended in the job evaluation process. The union argues that this is a singular case, unique in its circumstances and related to an independent ad-hoc evaluation of that position following a collective agreement with the employer.

The worker’s union representative requests that the Adjudication Officer finds in favour of the claim and a recommendation that the employer implement the collective agreement without delay from the date of the evaluation finding in December 2017.      

The employer states that the within dispute relates to a claim by the worker for the implementation of the outcome of an independent job measurement scheme. The employer asserts that at all times it has indicated its acceptance of the findings and its willingness to implement same, subject to the approval of the parent Department. However, the latter requirement, which is explicit in respect of posts at this level, has not been forthcoming.

The employer states that the within dispute is an unusual case, in that, effectively there is not a  dispute between the employer and the union representing the worker. It was stated that the difficulty stems from the stance of a third party in this instance the parent Department. It was stated that the filling of a post at this level requires explicit sanction from the parent Department. It was stated that the employer cannot act independently when a position under consideration for an upgrading is at the level applying in this instance.

The employer wishes to emphasise that in the event of the matter being resolved, it would confirm the worker in the position without the necessity of having to conduct a competitive process, which would ordinarily be the case in the event of a post being found to merit an upgrading.     

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

I note that the parties were in agreement in relation to the sequence of events that led to this case being submitted to the WRC and in relation to the role and responsibility of the worker. 

I note that it was accepted by both parties that the worker is and has been carrying out duties above and beyond the level at which he is currently graded. I am satisfied that the job evaluation recommendation/finding was accepted by both parties. I further note that the union and the employer agreed that the job evaluation outcome would have been implemented but for the failure to receive sanction from the relevant parent Department. 

In considering this matter I note the frustration of the worker but also the commitment of the worker in continuing to provide a service to the very best of his ability during a lengthy process of six and a half years.  I am also cognisant that the employer cannot make a decision in isolation from the parent Department given the governing legislation of the employer organisation.

I note the unique set of circumstances in the within dispute where both parties accept that the worker is inappropriately graded, where an agreed evaluation process has been undertaken by an experienced independent evaluator and where all parties accepted the outcome of that evaluation process.

I note that the employer has stated that there are no financial obstacles at play here nor does it regard this matter as being either precedent setting or in breach of PSA provisions.

Based on the information received regarding the within dispute and the unique set of circumstances pertaining in relation to the matter, I find that the worker’s dispute is well founded.  I recommend that the employer implements the collective agreement without delay from the date of the evaluation finding on 28 December 2017.        

Industrial Relations Act, job evaluation