Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A University

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 - 00003590

20/12/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker submitted that her Administration Officer role was graded at a certain level in 2018 in a regrading process undertaken by an external consultancy.  She did not appeal the grading at that time.  Subsequently she moved from that position and when it was readvertised, it was advertised at a higher level, Senior Administration Officer, even though it was the same role, albeit at a lower level of responsibility.

The worker then appealed the original grading of her role in 2023, but the employer did not use the external appeals officer named in the grading documentation, nor did it seek agreement as to a suitable alternative appeals officer.  Although the appeal resulted in an increased score, it did not result in the worker being awarded a higher grading of Senior Administrative Officer. The worker noted that she sought information from the employer relevant to formulating her appeal.  She stated that this information was only provided to her four days after she was told that her appeal was unsuccessful.

The worker is seeking a recommendation that the role she occupied be re-graded as Senior Administrative Officer or that the employer should undertake a review of its own recommendation in that the new role is “largely the same role” as that formerly occupied by the worker.

The worker also noted that she had sought information regarding the regrading process but was not provided with such information. The worker sought to initiate a grievance, but it was not accepted by the employer.

The employer submitted that as a preliminary matter, the dispute is collective in nature and therefore is outside the remit of the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The employer also submitted that the claim is a cost increasing claim and as such is in breach of the Public Service Agreement 2024 – 2026 that is currently in place. Clause 5.6.1 of this agreement states “The parties agree that no cost increasing claims for improvements in pay terms and conditions of employment will be initiated or implemented for the duration of the Agreement other than in accordance with the provisions of the Local Bargaining clause.”.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the employer submitted that it has acted reasonably in this matter.   The Appeal procedure for the review that took place in 2018 allowed for an appeal mechanism which was agreed with the Union.  She was offered the opportunity to appeal the outcome of the review process but did not do so at that time. It was only when the new post in the President’s Office was advertised that the worker decided to utilise the appeal mechanism.

The employer submitted that although it was outside of the timeframe indicated on the letter from 2019, it allowed the worker to appeal the decision.  She has now exhausted the internal mechanisms for review of the grading of her previous role. The employer has followed its own policy at all times and has even extended the appeals deadline beyond the original date indicated to her.

It is the employer’s position that any resulting adjustment to the grading and pay of the worker’s position would have consequential and precedential impact across the entity and other comparable sites across the public sector.

The employer made reference to a similar case, that of IR - SC - 00002705, where the Adjudicator noted: “Regrading requests are an extremely contentious matter in the current public sector industrial relations climate and require sanction by the parent department and DPENDR. The Employer, has in the past organised two separate regrading exercises. One was in 2018 where some 36 members of staff who occupied jobs which had outgrown the grade assigned to them were allowed to be considered for regrading. There was a subsequent regrading excise of 6 other posts which related to an internal reorganisation. Neither of these exercises support a general individual right for employees to insist on a regrading review by way of custom and practice”.

The employer submitted that the worker is seeking a review of a previous role which no longer exists. The worker in the instant case has had this role reviewed in 2018 and was afforded an appeal to the decision in 2024.

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

In the case of IR - SC – 00002705, the adjudication officer did not rule that the dispute was collective in nature and consideration was therefore precluded under the legislation.  Given that the circumstances apply to only one individual, it is hard to conclude that this dispute is collective.  The employer has already allowed an appeal of the grading decision.

This dispute dates back to a grading process undertaken in 2018 and to a appeal mechanism from 2024.  It does not relate to a claim for improvements in pay terms or conditions of employment but rather to an appeal mechanism where she sought information from her employer in order to structure her appeal.  This information was not forthcoming until shortly after she was informed that her appeal was unsuccessful.  In the circumstances, it is considered that the matter falls outside of the Public Service Agreement 2024 – 2026.

It is not the function of the WRC to simply regrade a role where a mechanism exists or existed to do so.  That the employer bypassed the Appeals Officer is irrelevant in circumstances where the outcome of such a step was that the matter would be referred to the external consultancy or not for further consideration.  The employer simply sent the appeal on to the external consultancy for consideration.

However, the worker had requested information from the employer to complete her appeal, and the information was not forthcoming, even though it was in the possession of the employer.  Having regard to this fact, it is only fair that the matter be considered afresh now that the information has been provided to the worker.

In the circumstances, a recommendation to allow the worker to compose a fresh appeal for consideration by the external consultancy seems to be reasonable.  This should not create a collective right to appeal unless it was the employers standard operating procedure to withhold information sought from every employee who had a right to appeal this process.

Industrial relations dispute – regrading exercise – information belatedly provided to employee – recommendation that a fresh appeal be made.