Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Engineer

A Public Utility

Representatives

Joanna Ozdarska, SIPTU

An Employee Relations Manager

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 - 00001434

06/06/2023

The worker commenced employment with the employer in February 2014 as an “Engineer 1.”  His starting salary of €87,000 was at point C of a seven-point salary band introduced by the employer in 2012 and agreed with the group of unions representing employees across the organisation.  This was based on Towers Watson’s global grading system.  The senior executive team are at point A, so the job of Engineer 1 is two bands below the senior team.

The worker’s position is that, over time, his role expanded and he took on additional responsibilities with the result that his job now defies classification by the Towers Watson system.  He is seeking a recommendation that his employer carries out a comprehensive job evaluation by an independent body so that his grade and benefits package accurately reflects his role.  He is also seeking a recommendation that a 5% increase is retrospectively applied to his salary from March 2014 until December 2022. 

Chronology Leading to this Grievance

Shortly after he was appointed to his role as Engineer 1 and, while he was still on probation, the worker was instructed to take on additional responsibilities, and he absorbed the work of an “Engineer 2.”  The scope of his job expanded further and the worker argues that it is now not capable of being classified withing the existing grading system.  In September 2021, he formally requested a re-evaluation of his role.  At the time, there was an organisational review of acting roles being undertaken in the organisation and he asked for his own job to be part of that review.

In response to his request, the head of his department wrote to the worker on November 19th 2021.  He informed the worker that his role was correctly evaluated at grade 13 of the band C salary range and that his salary was 105% of the midpoint of the range.  He also informed him that Towers Watson had conducted an external benchmarking exercise and that no amendment was recommended.

In her submission on behalf of the worker, Ms Ozdarska pointed out that the grade C salary range incorporates grades 12 to 17 of middle management roles and she said that this appears to be inappropriate for a senior management position.  She said that the worker never received clarification about how his job was evaluated and the salary comparison wasn’t explained to him.  As a result, he feels that the assessment was not appropriate.

Around the same time that the worker received this response to his request for a re-evaluation of his job, the employer introduced a new job title for Engineer 1 and 2, re-naming both as Operations Leads.  On December 15th 2021, the worker wrote to the head of HR, setting out his concerns about the change in his job title in the context of an accompanying change in duties and responsibilities.  The worker described the changes as “not minor,” when compared with his original job-specification of February 2014.  He said that he could not accept the proposed changes, and that he would continue, under protest, to carry out the duties associated with Engineer 1 and 2.

The worker appealed the decision of November 19th 2021 that his role was correctly evaluated at band C.  His appeal was considered on June 9th 2022 by a head of function.  At the appeal, the worker argued that his duties have evolved uniquely, incorporating extensive responsibilities not envisaged by either the original Engineer 1 or the Engineer 2 role descriptions.  The expansion includes roles typically associated with two band C positions, without formal recognition or financial adjustment.

On June 24th 2022, an employee relations manager wrote to the worker in response to the appeal hearing on June 9th.  The ER manager informed the worker that there was no substantive basis to re-evaluate his role, or make any compensation back dated to 2014.  The ER manager went on to say that the worker’s duties and responsibilities are “within the expected duties of a senior manager at this level / grade in the organisation.”

The worker appealed against this finding and, in preparation for an appeal meeting on February 14th 2023, he provided a submission with a detailed analysis of the job specifications of Engineer 1 and 2 and the salary grade, with comparisons with other roles.  He also provided a chronological analysis of the development of his role in the organisation.  On May 9th 2023, the senior ER manager who heard his appeal concluded that his claim was inconsistent with the company’s expectations of senior employees and not in line with the expectation that additional duties are required as a role evolves. 

What the Working is Seeking

The worker seeks a “tailored job evaluation,” which examines the unique evolution of his role.

By undertaking the responsibilities of Engineer 1 and Engineer 2, he said that he has demonstrated his capacity to perform at a high level of complexity and responsibility.  Beyond that initial expansion, he has taken on additional duties outside the framework of these two existing roles.

It is the worker’s position that the job evaluation carried out by Towers Watson in 2021 was unfair and that it was based on an engineering rather than a managerial grade.

He claims that, despite being classified as a senior level manager on the organisational chart, at grade C, his role is inaccurately compared to the grade 13 engineer in the evaluation process.

The online global scoring chart identifies middle management at grades ranging from 12 to 17.  The worker was never assessed as a senior level manager within this system.  He received confirmation that two separate roles, both at grade C, were merged into one role at grade 13 on the Towers Watson global grading framework.

It is the union’s position that, arising from this flawed evaluation, the worker was unfairly benchmarked against the engineer grade rather than the appropriate management grade across the group of companies covered by the union agreement at the time.  This discrepancy highlights the need for a review of the evaluation process to ensure an accurate assessment and fair compensation for the worker’s job.

Given the permanent evolution of this role into a unique position, Ms Ozdarska argued that it precludes direct comparison with other positions in the employer’s organisation and that a “bespoke” job evaluation process is necessary to accurately assess and clarify his position.

On behalf of the worker, Ms Ozdarska asked me to recommend that an independent body is appointed to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of his role, so that the grading can more accurately reflect the nature of his job.  He also seeks compensation and benefits in recognition of his additional responsibilities.  He is seeking a recommendation that his wages from 2014 are uplifted by 5% from the date of his commencement in his job on March 11th 2014 until December 2022.

Summary of The Worker’s Grievance

At the hearing, the worker said that, although he has carried out the responsibilities of Engineer 1 and Engineer 2 since 2014, since 2017, he has been working normal hours.  In 2014, he was instructed by a regional manager to do both jobs and it appears that he may have worked longer hours in the early years.  He said that he has never got an explanation as to how two jobs come out of the evaluation process as one job.  When I asked him why he didn’t raise a grievance about doing two jobs in 2014, he replied that there were “politics” involved and that the organisation was going through a lot of change and that there were headcount reductions.

Background

In her submission, the ER manager said that, as an Engineer 1, the worker occupied a senior management role in the organisation.  In line with the company’s policy, she said that he was subsequently reassigned within his grade and competency over the course of his career.  The ER manager referred to the following clause in the worker’s contract of employment:

“Your duties will be as specified in the attached job description.  However, you may be required to undertake other additional or alternative duties or assignments consistent with your level of responsibility.  The company retains a right to assign you to other management positions within a similar Band and competency.”

Included in the employer’s submission was an outline of the responsibilities of Engineer 1.  The ER manager said that a re-organisation of work resulted in the evolution of jobs such as that held by the worker.  On November 19th 2021, the worker’s job title was changed to “Operations Lead” and he received a letter amending his contract to this effect.  In January 2023, arising from a significant re-structuring in the organisation, the role of Operations Lead was changed to that of “Integration Lead.”  The change became effective for the worker on September 13th 2023, although he received a temporary allowance of 5% of his base salary with effect from January 1st 2023.  In advance of a change to the roles, the issue was the subject of conciliation with the trade unions and no employee was obliged to transition to a new role.  While the worker had the option of being permanently assigned to the role of Integration Lead, he did not opt to be re-assigned.

In her submission, the ER manager set out details of the pay model, from band G up to band B.  Band B roles are divided into B1 and B2, so, effectively, there are seven pay bands.  Each band has a minimum, midpoint and a maximum point.  The worker is at band C and the salary points are as follows:

Minimum     Midpoint     Maximum

€80,356        €100,445      €120,534

The worker’s base pay in 2014 was €87,150 and is now €110,858.  He is eligible for a performance-related pay award of up to 14% of base pay and he is also eligible for standby and on-call payments.  At present, he receives a temporary allowance of 5% of base pay for his role as Integration Lead.  His total remuneration in 2023 was €137,392.

The Employer’s Response to the Worker’s Claim

In response to the worker’s claims, the ER manager said that this grievance is in the form of a pay claim and is not a trade dispute, as defined at s.13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.  Without prejudice to that position, she summarised the worker’s arguments as follows: 

1.      Since 2014, he has been doing the work of two jobs.

2.      He raised the issue many times, but he was not advised how to proceed with any formal way of dealing with his concerns.

3.      A proper procedure was not followed.

4.      He is entitled to redress arising from the roles and duties he performs.

The ER manager said that the internal review process provided three separate reviews for the worker to have his grievance heard.  In response to his request in September 2021 to have his role re-evaluated, there were various communications with the HR department and with the worker’s head of function and the ER manager.  An evaluation and benchmarking analysis of the worker’s role was carried out in November 2021.  The outcome was as follows:

From the perspective of content, remit, area of impact and skills, there is no material difference in the worker’s current role compared to the job specification he was issued at the time he was recruited.  Both roles were evaluated at global grade 13, band C.

On the benchmarking analysis, the worker’s salary of €110,417 at the time was found to be significantly higher than internal and external averages and no recommendation was made for an exceptional salary increase.

In January 2022, the worker submitted further material in relation to his job description, salary and the process associated with the compensation and benefits review.  He received a response in May that year, in which the ER manager provided details of how the compensation and benefits team conduct salary reviews and the role of Towers Watson in the grading process.  The worker submitted a further appeal which was heard on June 9th 2022, and which I have referred to in the previous section.  In a decision of June 24th 2022, a different ER manager concluded that,

1.      There was no substantive basis for a role re-evaluation or compensation dated back to 2014.

2.      The duties and responsibilities of the worker are within the responsibilities of a senior manager at grade C in the organisation.

3.      This type of management position comes with responsibilities that are sometimes not specified in the job description.

4.      The majority of senior managers carry out tasks that are not written into their job descriptions.

5.      Based on grade and competency, the role is well remunerated and the benefits package reflects its seniority in the organisation.

6.      Senior managers will experience ongoing change as the organisation evolves.

7.      The worker’s salary is above the midpoint of the salary scale and no adjustment was warranted.

The worker submitted a final appeal to a senior ER manager, who issued his findings in June 2023.  These findings reflected the outcome of the June 2022 appeal.

It is the employer’s position that, as a senior employee on a salary of €110,858, the worker has been assigned duties that are consistent with his grade and his competence.  He has not established a legal claim to a different job description or higher wages and he makes no allegation of a breach of contract.  He has not exercised the option of taking on an enhanced role as an Integration Lead, at a grade that has been agreed with his union for Operations Leads who transitioned to the new set-up.

In advance of the hearing of this dispute, both sides provided me with comprehensive submissions.  These submissions assisted me with my understanding of the worker’s grievance, which occurred at a time of significant change and re-structuring in the organisation.  In the context of these changes, the worker was recruited in February 2014 to carry out a job with certain specified responsibilities and it appears that, a short time into his job, other responsibilities were added in.  It seems a bit odd that he waited until 2021 to raise a grievance about this change, particularly as he is a member of SIPTU and he would have had access to assistance to have the matter addressed.

Of interest also is the fact that, although the worker said that he was responsible for two roles, from 2017 onwards, he said that he didn’t generally work additional hours and it appears that he was able to manage the responsibilities assigned to him with reasonable comfort within the confines of a 40-hour week.  At the hearing, he did not indicate that he was under pressure or stressed with his workload and he appeared to me to enjoy the challenges of his job and he got some satisfaction from it.

I have some experience of the Towers Watson job evaluation process and I understand that the outcome of a job evaluation is often a disappointment to the job-holder, who is sometimes left with a sense that the evaluators have little sense of what the role involves.  The job evaluation process is an objective assessment of the value of a job in an organisation and it doesn’t take account of the subjective nature of the relationship between the job holder and his or her day-to-day responsibilities.  The evaluation process is not perfect but, in an objective manner, it seeks to ascribe a value to each job in an organisation without having any regard to the personalities or the performance of the job-holders.  This is necessary to ensure that employees can have confidence in the transparency of the grading system and to provide a template for new applicants to apply for jobs that match their skills and experience.

I note the union’s position that the worker’s job should be evaluated at a managerial level rather than at the level of an engineer.  The outcome from the job evaluation process is driven by the “inputs,” that is, information about what the job-holder does, the complexity of the job, the degree of problem-solving required and other components.  These “inputs” produce the job level and grade and it would be a contrivance if the evaluation process started off with a premise that a particular job is at a managerial level.   

There is an inherent risk in the prospect of an independent or “bespoke” review of the worker’s job.   In the first instance, there are relatively few organisations doing this work, and an independent review would have to be carried out by a consultancy other than Towers Watson.  To carry out a new evaluation, job levels would have to be established and this would necessitate the scoping out of every job, duplicating the work already done by Towers Watson.  It is my view that the outcome would be no different from the outcome that has emerged, which positions the in band C of the organisation’s seven-point scale.

I note the provision in the worker’s contract of employment that he may be required to take on additional or alternative duties, consistent with the job of a senior manager in the organisation.  At the hearing, Ms Ozdarska asked me to consider how much additional responsibilities an employee should be expected to take on.  Having heard from the worker at the hearing, it is my view that he has taken on responsibilities that he is qualified for and capable of doing.  I am satisfied that this reasonable evolution of his job is within the requirements of a senior manager at his level of remuneration.

Ms Ozdarska asked me to consider the Recommendation of a rights commissioner in a dispute between this employer and another worker in 2015.  Ms Ozdarska provided me with the reference number and I have tried to find this Recommendation.  Before the establishment of the WRC however, rights commissioner’s Recommendations were not made available publicly and I have not been able to find this document.

Having progressed his grievance through three formal stages in the organisation, I am satisfied that he has had a fair hearing.  I was impressed by the effort that he made with his submissions at each stage, and the examination of his duties in comparison to his original job specification.  However, I find myself in agreement with the ER managers whose conclusions I consider to be reasonable and fair in the circumstances. 

I recommend that the worker accepts the outcome from the final appeal of his grievance on June 9th 2023.

Job evaluation