Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Senior Executive Officer

Health Service

Representatives

Mr. David Field, Forsa

No Appearance

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 - 00002086

03/01/2024

The Worker commenced employment on 2nd March 1981. At all relevant times the Worker’s role was described as that of “senior executive officer”.

On 3rd January 2024, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that her Employer had failed to engage with her regarding the regrading of her role.

On foot of the failure of the Employer to object to the dispute in the manner prescribed, the dispute proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 10th May 2024.

The Worker issued a submission in advance of this hearing. This submission was expanded upon at the hearing. No submission contesting the Worker’s position was issued by the Employer. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing as scheduled.

By submission, the Worker stated that in 2018 she took up a grade 7 post in the Employer’s consumer affairs department. Given the apparent level of responsibilities attached to the role, in April 2021 the Worker applied to the Employer to be upgraded to grade 8. Said application was made with the assistance of the regional manager for consumer affairs, who confirmed that the role is in line with a grade 8 job specification.

Thereafter, the Worker and her union representative have made numerous enquires as to the status of the application. On 8th June 2022, over a year from the date of the initial referral, the Employer stated that the matter had not progressed due to a change in personnel in the relevant office. Thereafter, on 25th August 2022, the Employer informed the Worker that the application had been passed to the relevant office, and that further information had been requested. Said information was provided in due course, and the Worker was informed that the matter would receive the Employer’s attention on 11th October 2022. On 26th January 2023, the Worker was informed that the application had been provisionally approved and had been sent to the relevant payroll and operational departments for further approval. Following this communication, no further update or apparent progress occurred in relation to the application by the date of referral of the complaint, almost a further year later.

By submission, the Worker stated that she had been undertaking the grade 8 role for a number of years, whilst remaining at grade 7. While she accepted that regrading processes may take time, she submitted that the amount of time this particular process had taken has been inordinate. In addition to the foregoing, she submitted that the Employer routinely failed to keep her informed as to status of the application.

As outlined above, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Employer at the hearing as scheduled. Having reviewed the file, it is apparent that the Employer was no notice of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In circumstances whereby no application to adjourn the proceedings was received prior to the hearing, and no reason for the Employer’s non-attendance was received in the weeks following the hearing, the recommendation below will be based on a consideration of the Worker’s submission only.

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

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker has submitted that the Employer has consistently failed to engage with her regarding the correct grading of her role within the organisation. During the hearing, and following an enquiry from the Adjudicator, the Worker’s representative confirmed that the Worker is not seeking a recommendation regarding the correct grading of the worker, but a review of the process adopted by the Employer in investigating the Worker claim and implementing the changes.

In this regard, it is accepted that application in respect of regrading cannot and should not be processed quickly, a point readily accepted by the Worker. Notwithstanding the same, it is apparent that following her initial application for re-grading, an application made with the support of her line manager, the Employer took no substantive action for a period of over one year. Thereafter, while it appeared that Employer processed the application with relative expediency for a period of time, the application again ground to a halt following an apparent positive decision in the Worker’s favour. This second delay resulted in no material development in the process for a period of approximately one year prior to the referral of the complaint.

Having reviewed the information provided by the Worker, it is apparent that the internal application for the regarding of her role had been subject to a number of inordinate and inexcusable delays. While some delay is to be expected in such an application, particularly in a large organisation such as the Employer, the nature and extent of the delays outlined by the Worker are inexcusable.

Having regard to the totality of evidence provided, I recommend in favour of the Worker. Regarding settlement of the dispute, I recommend that the Employer correspond with the Worker within two weeks of the date below to discuss the status of the application and the expected timeframe in relation to the completion of the same. In addition to the same, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €3,000 in compensation for the distress caused by the delay in processing the application.

Grading, Delay, Inordinate