Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Third Level Educational Institution/ (now) A University

Representatives

Ed Thompson, Unite Union Ireland

Declan Thomas 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 - 00001963

08/11/2023

The complaint is that the Worker was not properly graded following the amalgamation of her Employer with other third level institutions to establish a new University.

The Worker has worked as a Clinical Skills Nurse Manager for the Respondent since 2013. She was given a permanent contract in August 2017.

In 2022 the Employer amalgamated with a number of other third level institutions to establish a new university.

Prior to this amalgamation the Worker was advised that her role would have a changed job title to that of Technical Officer. Those with whom the Complainant worked alongside, were also advised that they had become Technical Officers but she had additional duties – both in terms of teaching and administrative – which were not reflected in this new job title.

She brought a grievance under the Grievance Procedure which went to Stage 2. A review was undertaken on behalf of the Employer to evaluate other posts. The Reviewer to also evaluate the Worker’s post but she was not asked to engage with that review and the Reviewer found that for the present she would remain as a Technical Officer. The Worker was unhappy with the fact that she was not permitted to meet with or engage with the Reviewer and she feels that her specific role was not properly evaluated.

At her Stage 3 hearing the Grievance Officer advised that the matter should be referred to the WRC to adjudicate upon.

The Complainant said that her job was never evaluated and that a job evaluation process now needs to be undertaken by the Employer to see if she is correct to say that the distinguishing features of her post bring her to a higher job title, ie to Senior Specialist Technical Officer.

The Complainant seeks that she be found to be a SSTO or at least that a job evaluation now take place.

When the amalgamation occurred the Technical Officer grade that was established brought the Complainant to a higher salary level that that she had previously enjoyed as a Clinical Skills Nurse Manager.

Prior to the amalgamation to establish the new university, the Worker raised a grievance that the proposed Technical Officer role did not reflect her duties and responsibilities. As there was a review of other posts already in being the Employer asked a Review Officer to also consider a review of the Worker’s post which he did. His recommendation was that her role remain as a Technical Office role at present.

The Employer has no existing agreement with the Worker’s trade union to carry out an independent job evaluation.

The Employer asks the Adjudication Officer to affirm that the Worker’s position is that of a Technical Officer or in the alternative revert the process back to a Stage 3 Grievance level in order that an external job evaluation of the Worker’s duties and responsibilities may take place.

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

I am satisfied that a full job evaluation has not yet been conducted in respect of this Worker’s position.

I recommend that, as agreed, the parties revert to the agreed grievance process as set out at Section 8.8 Stage 3 of the Employer’s Grievance Procedure, in order to allow a full job evaluation of the Worker’s role to now take place.