Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Manager

A Hospital

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 - 00003628

07/01/2025

The worker has been employed as an Accounts Payroll Manager with the employer since 2009.

The worker explained that he has an excellent record over his 17 years of service.  He believes he should be upgraded from Grade VII Officer to Grade VIII Officer as this higher grade more accurately reflects the responsibilities and duties, he carries out today. Over the 17 years of his employment, he has taken on extra responsibilities and accountabilities.  The team reporting to him has increased over the years and is now much larger than teams in comparative hospitals. 

The worker says he was promised an upgrade in 2011 as part of a re-organisation, but this promise was never fulfilled. He worked “under protest” and took on extra work. In 2021 he again found that he would have to take on extra work associated with Brexit.  Around this time, due to the extra work he had to do he sought a review of his Grade/role. This request was rejected.  On foot of this rejection the worker initiated a grievance process, which although acknowledging that Brexit had resulted in him doing extra work his request for an upgrade was rejected; he was told “upgrades are given when the work undertaken is proven to be of a more complicated level.” The worker believes the work he undertook relating to Brexit was complicated and this should have been recognised.

The worker submits that an upgrade to his role, from Grade VI to Grade VII, made in 2015, as part of a general restructuring, had nothing to do with the extra responsibilities he had taken on and does nothing to address the specifics of his claim. 

In summary, the worker is seeking an upgrade to Grade VIII based on the additional work he took on in 2011 and because a upgrade is justified on a stand-alone basis by the extra work involved by the fallout from Brexit.

If the sought after upgrade is not recommended, the worker is looking for a Job Evaluation Exercise be carried out.

The employer does not believe an upgrade is justified.

The upgrade to Grade VII in 2025 covered all the duties carried out by the worker.

The Job Evaluation Scheme mentioned by the worker only applies to Grades 3 to 6 and if a job evaluation was carried out for this worker it would have national ramifications.

The worker’s role has been reviewed internally three times and it has been found that nothing has changed as much as to require an upgrade.

The employer submits that Accounts Payable Managers in comparative hospitals are all Grade VIIs and if any adjustment were made for this worker, it would have impact across all of those other hospitals; this is at its core a collective dispute.

The employer submits that this is a also cost increasing claim.

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

Although this dispute has been raised by an individual on an individual basis, the claim, if conceded could have a collective impact across all comparative hospitals. Any recommendation that the worker’s role be subject of a Job Evaluation Scheme evaluation could also have collective ramifications as the Scheme would no longer be confined to Grades 3 to Grades 6.

I find that this complaint has implications for a body of workers.

Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 provides:

Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

In LCR21839 Cavan Monaghan Disabilities Services – and – A Worker the Labour Court stated:

“the outcome of the within dispute has far reaching implications for a broad cohort of similarly affected staff … It is in effect a collective dispute and ought not to have been referred under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.”

Likewise, in LCR22904 the Court found that the trade dispute was connected with rates of pay of a body of workers and declined jurisdiction in the matter.

The import and meaning of Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 as confirmed by the Labour Court is that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

Upgrade, collective ramifications,