Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Day Services Manager

A Health Care Service Provider

Representatives

Forsa Trade Union Representative

Representatives on behalf of the Employer

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 - 00002711

31/05/2024

This is dispute in respect of pay and the grading of a post that was held by the Employee from 2011 to date.

The Employee has had long service with the Employer, commencing her employment in 1992. She was promoted several times to a series of managerial roles and in August 2011 she was requested to take over a role of Disability Day Services Manager, which she accepted.

When she took up this role, she asked Employer management to consider her pay. She asserted that there were other employees who held similar roles but who were on a grade 6 pay level. She was on grade 5.  

After no response to these requests in 2017, the Employee requested a job evaluation, but this too resulted in a prolonged delay when her entitlement to have her role evaluated was queried and delayed. After a frustrating period of inaction she issued a grievance on 7 February 2023 requesting that her role be graded as a grade 6 role and that she be paid the shortfall in the wages between the pay level that she was on and the grade 6 pay level.

Her grievance was upheld and the outcome which issued on 2 March 2023 recommended that her role of Disability Day Services Manager be recognised as equivalent to a grade 6 pay level. The grievance outcome also recommended that the Employee be paid retrospectively for lost salary for (then) a period of 6 years, back to February 2017 reflecting when she requested that her position and pay undergo a re-evaluation process, which had not happened.

Her WRC dispute was for the Grievance Outcome to be implemented that her job be re-graded as a Grade 6 role and that she be compensated.

On day 3 of the Adjudication hearing the parties had resolved the issues between them bar one.

In between the adjudication hearing days the Employee was offered and accepted a job offer in a grade 6 role however the dispute that remained between the parties, was the level of compensation that should be paid to her.

The Employee sought that the outcome of the grievance be upheld and that the appropriate level of compensation reflects the shortfall in pay starting in February 2017 (when she requested that her role be re-evaluated) to date, ie for a period of 8 years.

The Employer sought instead that the compensation be limited to the date upon which she raised her grievance, from 7 February 2023, ie for 2 years.

All other matters of dispute having been resolved, the Employer requested that the level of compensation award be assessed starting on from the date she raised her grievance, being 7 February 2023 to date, ie 2 years shortfall in pay.

The Employer representative stated that he wanted to acknowledge the level of dedication that the Employer had demonstrated throughout her career with the Respondent. He also wished to acknowledge the patience and perseverance that she had shown and the constructive way that she engaged with the Adjudication process which was at all times solution-driven. He wished her luck in her new post.

He also wished to acknowledge the efforts made by two named individuals on the Employer side who worked tirelessly to find a solution to meet the needs of both parties and without whom the solution would not have been found.

He submitted that an award of 8 years of retrospective shortfall in wages would be excessive and that 2 years was reasonable and proportionate.

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

This industrial relations dispute shows precisely how the IR process should work.

Unlike a lot of IR disputes, where the issuing of a WRC dispute leads to defensiveness, a lack of openness and ultimately a lack of cooperation, this process was entirely different.

There was a positive spirit of engagement between the parties. The parties and their representatives worked hard to find a solution that would work prospectively, and they were successful in doing so. 

I wish to commend the parties and their representatives on their constructive approach. I wish to commend all the efforts that were made and the leadership which resulted in the resolution of this long-standing dispute.

In considering this investigation I have had no doubt that her underpayment of wages over time must have impacted at the Employee’s sense of self-worth in work and from what I have heard about her ability, work ethic and sense of duty, I wish that were not the case, because it is not deserved.

The only matter that remains for me to recommend to the parties is the level of compensation award that should be made. I intend to deal with compensation under two headings.

Shortfall in Pay Award

As has been acknowledged by the Employer representative this positive outcome has been a long time coming for the Employee. She worked from 2011 in this post. She was underpaid from this time until 2017 (after multiple requests to review her pay grade.) At the time of issue of this Recommendation the period of underpayment is now 14.5 years. She seeks a compensation award reflecting a shortfall in pay going back to February 2017 (8 years.)

It is my view that a reasonable time period to compensate the Employee for the shortfall in pay is a period of 5 years ie from 7 February 2020 to date.

Award for Delays

It is my view that to this award should also be added a compensatory lump sum award to reflect the delays in dealing with this dispute. Initially from 2011 on there was a lack of response to her request for a pay review. Then from 2017 there were delays in processing her job evaluation request. There were also delays from 2023 on but (given management’s belief that the grievance outcome had overreached itself) this is more understandable than the delays prior to then. But I take comfort from the fact that the delays should not have occurred, is now acknowledged by the Employer.

To compensate for these delays and the fact that, but for the Employee’s perseverance, I fear that she might still be being underpaid, I add to the shortfall in pay award, a further lump sum award of €7,500.00

Pay - Pay Grade