Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Public Body

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 - 00003197

26/09/2024

The Worker is working in a basic grade with the Employer since 12th October 2020.

The Worker was informed her position was approved for regrading to a Senior post in November 2022. She signed revised terms and conditions for her new post which had a commencement date of 19th December 2022. However, the regrading did not proceed. She was informed it was a matter of time. Following many calls and emails, a meeting took place in May 2023 where some solutions were proposed. The Worker was not satisfied as regrading would not be actioned, and lodged a complaint in July 2023.

A first stage grievance hearing took place on 13th June 2024. The Worker was informed that her grievance was not upheld in July 2024. The Worker has suffered distress, upset and worry as a result of what occurred. It has impacted her career progression as she did not apply for other more senior roles. She had told family and friends of her regrading, and was embarrassed as the regrade did not occur. She suffered financial loss of approximately 28,791.00 euro.

An application was made to regrade the post in January 2025, but it has not been sanctioned.

The Employer says on 12th August 2022 the Manager of the Worker wrote to the General Manager of the service expressing support for a regrade of her post. The Manager was directed to HR regarding exploring mechanisms for a regrade. The HR Manager requested evidence the Worker was working single-handedly carrying out work of a specialist nature from a Consultant doctor, and said they could move to regrading the post. The funding for the increase would have to come from the budget for another area.

Forms for change of terms and conditions of the Workers role to the other area were provided to her, so that once the regrade was processed this would apply.

The HR Manager in October 2022, referenced the report of the Expert Group 2000 which states:

 “……. a senior post exists where the person is working single handed in a designated area or in charge of a department that is a distinct entity, in which at least two others are employed. The structure for these professions also provides that in exceptional circumstances, where the holder of a basic grade is carrying out individualised specialised work demanding a high degree of responsibility and technical skill, the post could be upgraded to a senior level. The specific approval of the Department is required in such cases. There was little evidence that many senior posts have been established through this process.”

In the Workers Department, there is already a Senior role and are a total of two individuals employed. The Senior person was on maternity-leave and her role was backfilled at the time. The Employers HR Department informed the Worker that any regrade must meet the criteria already agreed with staff in November 2023.

In February 2024 the Employer met with the Worker to update her that the information she was previously provided by HR was inaccurate. The Management attempted to create a new senior post, but the Worker is placed second on the Senior panel. A business case was not submitted for the new post since there was no guarantee the Worker would secure this.

Management have also made enquiries to establish if there has been any progress with regards to the WRC memo dated 11/12/2023 which states commencing in January 2024 for a period of 8 weeks, there will be an exercise to identify those eligible for the staff to senior grade pathway. Management had hoped this would provide a mechanism to upgrade the post.

The Worker lodged a grievance in relation to the issue which was heard at stage 1 of the procedure in July 2024. The grievance was not successful and was not appealed by the Worker.

The Employer says the role and team structure does not meet the required criteria and any upgrade must align with the criteria for upgrade for the relevant staff. The Expert Report was implemented collectively through a process with Forsa and there was an addendum prepared by the WRC in 2023 for additional areas.

The Employer says the Worker did not exhaust the grievance procedure. Nationally agreed procedures apply which have been agreed with Worker Representatives. This issue has been dealt with as a collective matter under WRC conciliation. The claim is cost increasing and is prohibited under Building Momentum 2024-2026 and would set a precedent. The incorrect upgrading process was communicated to management, and the regret the delays and miscommunications to the Worker. Management applied for an upgrade to the post in January 2025.

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

The Worker was informed her position was being regraded in November 2022 and believed it was commencing on 19th December 2022. The Worker is acknowledged to be highly competent and carrying out complex responsible work. At the time, the Senior member of staff in her Department was on maternity-leave. The position was backfilled, but the temporary replacement was unable to see clients on a face to face basis. The Worker provided the direct service during this period and her manager recognised that her role and responsibilities were that of a Senior grade.

However, in November 2023 it became clear that a regrading had not been authorised and it would be subject to pathways to align with agreed procedures for regrading of staff. If a business case was put forward for a regrade, the new position would be subject to the usual recruitment processes. The Worker was upset and distressed about the lack of information and miscommunication to her during this period. She did not apply for three other senior posts as a result, and this impacted her career progression.

The Worker submitted a grievance in June 2024, her grievance was not upheld in July 2024. The Employer is bound by its collective agreements in relation to regrading and the situation did not meet the criteria.

On a once off basis and without creating any precedent, I recommend a payment of one year’s increment of 10,042 euro by the Employer to the Worker as compensation in the circumstances.