LCR22976

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00039852 (CA-00051282-001 IR-SC-00000399)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 12 December 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 21 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 dispute.

The Employers pay evaluation system lacks any structure at this level to evaluate the claim and I do not intend by this Recommendation to suggest that it does introduce a system but the fact that the role is undertaken in the vast majority of areas by a higher grade (recognising the Employers position that it is done so only as part of other more substantial functions of the other posts) suggests to the Adjudicator that this claim needs more detailed independent evaluation than has taken place so far. I also that the General Managers communication to the Worker that he supports the claim and that no other employee in the area has absorbed the Workers FOI functions into their role at a higher grade level similar to many other areas in the country. These circumstances have contributed substantially to the particular situation the Worker finds themselves in. The Employer can’t have it both ways with a higher grade not taking on the responsibility for the duties of the Worker and then denying the Worker the right to evaluate if her duties deserve the higher grade. Unless this issue is addressed by the Employer within two months from the date of this Recommendation. I recommend that the Worker nominate a minimum of 3 posts and a maximum of 5 posts from the higher grade that she deems completely comparable to her duties and that the Employer carry out an evaluation of these comprator roles to the Workers role by an independent job evaluation expert to determine the merits of the claim. The Worker should nominate these posts within a maximum of two months of the date of this Recommendation, subject to the caveat in italicsabove and the evaluation should be completed within three months of the posts being nominated. The analysis and result should be communicated to the Worker by the end of a maximin total of five months from the date of this Recommendation. As this is a neutral Recommendation I do not recommend in favour of either Party. ’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 May 2024.

DECISION:

The Appeal

This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal by the Health Service Executive (‘the Employer’) from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00039852; IR-SC-00000399, dated 21 November 2023) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 12 December 2023. The Court heard the appeal in Sligo on 16 May 2024. The Worker – a Grade VII Administrative Officer - did not make an appearance at the appeal hearing and had informed the Court in writing in advance that that would be the case.

Subject of Dispute

The Worker is seeking a regrading of her current post from Grade VII to Grade VIII having regard to the higher range of duties she has been performing for a number of years.

The Employer’s Submission

The Employer has accepted that “the Worker’s claim has considerable merit”. However, it is submitted that the claim cannot be conceded as there is no mechanism currently in place for job evaluation or re-grading of posts above Grade VI; concession of the claim would be cost-increasing and contrary to Building Momentum and would have collective implications that make it inappropriate for consideration in the context of a single-worker dispute.

Decision

The issue of regrading has collective implications and cannot, therefore, be considered by the Court in the context of an appeal under section 13 of the Act. The Court also finds that the Worker’s claim is cost-increasing and prohibited by Building Momentum, which applied when the claim was initiated.

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.