LCR23037

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00043019 (IR-SC-0000868)

BACKGROUND:

A Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 7 May 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 12 April 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“I cannot uphold the complaint with respect to the upgrading of the post or with respect to the manner of filling of posts recommended/ identified / approved for upgrading because these matters are outside of my jurisdiction.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 August 2024

DECISION:

This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by the worker against the decision of an Adjudication Officer.

The worker is engaged as a Grade 7 worker in the employment. He contends that at least some of the elements of his role are appropriate to a grade 8 worker. He raised a stage 2 grievance in May 2022 contending that his post should be upgraded to grade 8.

The Hospital Manager who dealt with that grievance under the procedure in place in the employment stated in her outcome letter to him that she was upholding the worker’s grievance. She said that she was supportive that “this current post does merit consideration to be upgraded from a grade VII to a Grade VIII level”.

In reaching this conclusion she set out that, with regard to the regrading of posts, “regraded posts will need to be advertised by open competition as there is no other mechanism for appointments into regraded posts should your submission be successful”.

Ultimately, the manager, in June 2022, advised the worker that his grievance was referred to the Group HR Director for her consideration under stage 3 of the Grievance Procedure. In making that referral she advised the Director that the only way forward for the worker in terms of his grievance was that he would be upgraded in the role he then occupied.

The Director replied to that referral to say to the Manager that a current post holder could not be upgraded in the post he or she holds.

Ultimately, it appears that the grievance process went no further within the employment and the within referral to the WRC was made on 18th November 2022.

The employer, at the hearing of the Court, made clear that it does not accept that the post the worker occupied and still occupies is a grade 8 post. The worker disputed this assertion.

The Labour Court is not a grading unit of this employer, and there is no grading review scheme in the employment for this grade of worker. The employer submits that the post the worker occupies is correctly graded. The employer also asserts that, even if the post was upgraded there is no means available to arrange that the worker would occupy the upgraded post other than as a result of an open competition.

The Court has concluded, based on the written and oral submissions of the parties, that any recommendation to upgrade the post and to appoint the worker into the upgraded post would be unrealistic and unimplementable in that it would fly in the face of established arrangements in place in the employment for appointment of staff to higher grade positions.

In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the employer should review all elements of the role of the worker to establish whether any element of that role as currently delivered would not normally be assigned to a grade 7 worker but would be assigned to a grade 8 worker because it would be considered to be above the level appropriate to a grade 7 worker. If it comes to be established that the worker is currently required to carry out tasks or functions which are appropriate to be carried out only by grade 8 workers (and not grade 7 workers) those elements should be removed from his job so as to ensure that the duties expected of the worker are all within level of duties expected to be carried out by a grade 7 worker.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
FC	______________________
2 September 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.