Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Manager

Charity

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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 - 00002121

11/01/2024

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 8th August 2008. The Worker was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €1,038.46. The Worker resigned her contract of employment on 13th July 2023.

On 11th January 2024, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Employer failed to compensate her for a role in which she was completing for a significant period of time. No written response was received to this submission from the Employer.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the matter proceeding within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 20th May 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

The Worker issued an extensive submission in advance of the hearing. While the Employer issued no written submission in advance of the hearing, they issued a verbal response to the allegations raised by the Worker. At the outset of the hearing, the Employer requested that the matter be adjourned as they were unaware of the hearing itself until a few days prior to the same. In circumstances whereby the notice of hearing was issued to the correct address, this application was denied, and the matter proceeded as scheduled. 

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By submission, the Worker stated that throughout the relevant period for the purposes of the present complaint, she was engaged a “Manager of a Regional Support Service”. Notwithstanding the same the Worker frequently completed duties well outside of those expected of this role. In this regard, the Worker submitted that she worked with a third-party organisation to set up and maintain a number of properties within the midlands area. These duties entailed key holding for the properties and coordination of property management. In addition to the foregoing, the Worker  conducted risk assessment in relation to the centres, with the same being added to the on-call roster for the area.  This process, and that additional work associated with the same, placed a significant burden on the Worker and her team, with all affected employees working significant hours to accommodate the needs of the users of the service.

As a consequence of the foregoing, the Worker raised the issue of the funding required to maintain the additional workload of the centre. Following a meeting with various stakeholders and local representatives, the Worker was informed that the application had been successful. Thereafter, the Worker was informed that she would be required to interview for the role that she had been completing for the last number of years. By subsequent email, the Worker queried whether she continue to complete the duties of the role, or whether these would be transferred to another period. The Worker issued numerous such emails over a significant period, with no substantive response being received in relation to the same prior to the Worker’s resignation.

By submission, the Worker stated that she was seeking full redress for the period of time in which she was acting up into the role of “Manager of Housing with Support Services”. In this regard she submitted that various other senior managers within the organisation received increases in salary based in the additional funding, secured in no small part by her efforts.

While the Employer issue no written submission to contradict that of the Worker, at the hearing they issued a verbal response. In this respect, they submitted that the Worker received payment in accordance with her contractual terms. They further submitted that it is best practice that open recruitment is operated for all roles, including that referred to by the Worker. They further submitted that they had no financial ability to provide for the retrospective payment of acting up roles that had not been formalised.

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 for many years of her employment she acted as the de facto manager of housing services. Following a lengthy process, evidentially spearheaded by the Worker herself, the Employer secured funding for the role which the Worker had been completing for a number of years and that she had helped to create. Following the securing of this funding, it is apparent that the Employer was to undergo a period of restructuring, with the Worker apparently having to interview for this role. In addition to the foregoing, the Worker submitted that management of the Employer provided little clarity in relation to the issue and failed to respond to queries in relation to this issue in a timely matter or at all. On foot of the same, the Worker submitted that she should receive retrospective payment for the work completed in this acting capacity.

From the submissions of the parties, it is evident that throughout her employment, a great deal of responsibility was placed on the Worker. In this regard, it is clear that the Worker assumed responsibilities beyond those for which she was hired and, it must be noted, for which she remunerated. Not only did the Worker assume responsibility for many of housing elements of the Employer’s activities, it is apparent that the Worker and her team were obliged to answer call outs arising from the services. These callouts had the effect of increasing the Worker’s weekly hours and added a further layer of difficulty and stress to an undoubtedly stressful role. It is further evidence that the Worker played in instrumental part in applying to the relevant authorities for an increase of funding and subsequently securing said funding.

On confirmation of the securing if said funding, it might be reasonably assumed that many of the Worker’s difficulties might have been resolved. However, by submission the Worker stated that rather than provide clarity in relation to the manner by which this funding was to be applied, management of the Employer became evasive and did not respond to the queries of the Worker or her team.

In this regard, it should be noted that the position of the Employer regarding the Worker applying for the role that she had been fulfilling for a significant period of time, is not of itself unreasonable. When a senior role, such as the role relevant to the present dispute, becomes available, it is best practice to hold an open competition for the same. While the person currently fulfilling the duties will usually be the best candidate for the same, the Employer organisation has an obligation to allow others to apply and allow the candidate to succeed on their own merits. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the present dispute it is not at all apparent the Worker was informed for this position. From the documentation opened during the hearing, it is apparent that the Worker’s clearly articulated concerns in relation to this issue were effectively ignored. Having reviewed the correspondence opened by the Worker in this regard, it is apparent that the Employer is guilty of engaging in poor communication with the Worker, and her team, at a time of undoubted uncertainty and unrest.

Regarding an outcome in relation to the present dispute, the Worker has requested that she be remunerated in accordance with the terms of the of new role as agreed following the securing of the additional funding. While I have no doubt that the Worker was completing these duties during the period in question, and that she generally worked extremely hard in challenging conditions, the fact remains that the Employer is a charity with limited resources. There is no indication that the Employer would be in financial position to support the retrospective payment of an acting-up allowance going back numerous years.

In this regard it is noted that the purpose of the Commission in regard to disputes referred under the Industrial Relations Acts is to offer a practical solution to a dispute, within a voluntarist framework, in an effort to resolve the issues between the parties. Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, it is recommended that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €1,500 as a goodwill gesture in respect of the work previously completed in an acting-up capacity, with a further €500 to be paid in compensation for the poor communication with the Worker towards the end of her employment.  

Acting-up, Communication, Funding