LCR22972

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00032739 (CA-00043398)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 10 November 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 2 November 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

‘’Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the despite.

I uphold the findings of the Assessor in the Job Evaluation Report dated 2 April 2023. I am satisfied that, that the work being performed by the Worker is that of a Grade 8 management post.

The Worker’s position should be recognised as a Grade 8 post and the Worker should be paid back-pay (losses arising from the fact she was paid on a Grade 7 and not a Grade 8 level) from 4 September 2019 (being the date when she raised this grievance with her Employer).’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 May 2024.

DECISION:

The Appeal

This is an appeal on behalf of Letterkenny University Hospital/Health Service Executive (‘the Employer’) from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00032739/CA-00043398, dated 2 November 2023) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 10 November 2023. The Court heard the appeal in Sligo on 14 May 2024.

The Dispute

The Worker holds a Grade VII post in Consumer Services in Letterkenny University Hospital. In 2019, the Worker sought an upgrade to Grade VIII. This request was refused by management on the basis that it did not have the authority to upgrade a post without open competition and prior sanction from the Health Service Executive (‘the HSE’) and DPER. Management also referred to the nationally agreed job evaluation scheme in place within the HSE which is confined to Grades III to VI and therefore inapplicable to the Worker.

The Worker, having first exhausted the Employer’s internal grievance procedure, referred a dispute under section 13 of the Act to the Workplace Relations Commission on 5 April 2019. When the matter came before an Adjudication Officer, it appears that the Parties agreed to the appointment of an Assessor to carry out an independent job evaluation of the Worker’s tasks and responsibilities. That process was carried out and the Assessor found, in a written report dated 2 April 2023, that the Work being performed by the Worker was like work to that of a named Grade VIII manager in another hospital. Having heard both Parties in relation to the Assessor’s findings, the Adjudication Officer recommended:

“The Worker’s position should be recognised as a Grade 8 post and the Worker should be paid backpay (losses arising from the fact that she was paid on a Grade 7 and not a Grade 8 level) from 4 September 2019 (being the date when she raised the grievance with her Employer).”

The Employer’s Submission

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the process followed by the Assessor was flawed for the following reasons:

• The questionnaire drawn up by the Assessor was signed off by the Worker’s Line Manager but was not shown to, or signed off by, the Hospital Manager;
• The Employer is not in a position to validate whether or not the information in the completed questionnaire is an accurate reflection of the Worker’s role;
• The Hospital Manager does not accept the accuracy of the verbal description given to him of the Worker’s role in the course of a meeting with the Assessor; and
• The comparator named by the Worker and relied on by the Assessor is an inappropriate comparator and was not agreed between the Parties.

The Employer is seeking to have the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer set aside for the foregoing reasons.

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that the terms of reference for the independent assessment were agreed and followed through. The independent Assessor interviewed the agreed comparator on 9 March 2023 and then met with the Hospital Manager on 21 March 2023 as part of the process. The Hospital Manager raised a number of issues at that meeting which the Assessor then reverted to the Worker’s Line Manager about. The Assessor’s report issued on 2 April 2023. The Hospital Manager appears not to have raised any further issues until June 2023 when the Worker’s Line Manager was asked whether or not she had retained a copy of the completed questionnaire.

It is submitted on the Worker’s behalf that the independent assessment process was an agreed process and was completed in accordance with the terms of reference that both Parties had signed up to in advance. Finally, it is submitted that the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation endorsing the findings of the external Assessor should be upheld.

Discussion and Decision

Having carefully considered the Parties’ written and verbal submissions, the Court finds no basis for upsetting the substance of the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation i.e. that following an agreed independent assessment of the Worker’s role, her post should be upgraded to Grade VIII. However, the Court finds that the upgrade should take effect from the date of the Assessor’s report – 2 April 2023. To that extent, the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation is varied.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
CN	______________________
10 June 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Cathal Nerney, Court Secretary.