ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008519
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
CA-00011195-001 | 08/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute..
Background:
The complainant is an employee in a Further Education establishment and undertakes duties as a librarian. She is paid on the respondent’s clerical pay scales as it does not have a grade of librarian, but she receives an allowance of €3,769 per annum in respect of her work and qualifications. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant is seeking a re-grading to the position of Senior Executive Librarian, Grade 7 to reflect her role and level of responsibilities. While she was given an allowance in 2004 there have been significant changes in her role and level of responsibility since then. The issue has been outstanding for some time and previous discussions which were to follow on foot of a Rights Commissioner decision did not materialise. She says that she would be happy if that were to happen now. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent says that it does not have a grade for professional Librarians and while the complainant acquired some qualifications on her own initiative she is not a professional librarian and the service she provides is a limited one, more appropriate to the level of that provided by a Library Assistant. The respondent was not even clear prior to coming to the hearing what the complainant’s claim is. It also submits that the case is subject to the res judicata rule as it has been the subject of a previous hearing by a Rights Commissioner and that no ‘trade dispute’ exists between the parties. Even if an appropriate comparator could be found the respondent might not be in a position to fund any increase as the complainant is paid out of funds sourced independently by her direct employer. However, it expressed a willingness to enter into a process with the complainant to examine her claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Both parties entered into the hearing in a very positive manner. There is clearly scope for further discussions directly between them. The respondent is prepared to examine the possibility that the complainant’s allowance might not have been adjusted in line with pay movements since it was first established in 2004. If this is the case then it is quite clearly an anomaly but I make no finding on that which might pre-empt the general discussion between the parties which I recommend below. There are two stages in that process. The first will be for the complainant to establish an appropriate comparator for her claim. Then there is the not insignificant matter of funding any increase which might be considered appropriate. In reality it is likely that these two steps will be somewhat blended as there is little value to either side in agreeing something in principle which has no prospect of being implemented for want of funding. In the event that these discussions do not lead to agreement I find for the record that the previous decision of the Rights Commissioner does not represent a finding that would prevent the matter being heard again, and in any case by far the best chance of a positive outcome lies in direct discussions and agreement between the parties. In his decision in case r-145831-ir-14 the Rights Commissioner recommended further discussions between the parties with the assistance of the Conciliation service of the Labour Court. For reasons that are not entirely clear they did not proceed but there was nothing ‘judicata’ about the substantive matter beyond a recommendation that the parties talk. The Rights Commissioner said; ‘I would strongly exhort the parties to have a further final attempt to reach a resolution amenable to both parties’. For the reason that this did not happen I repeat that exhortation below with some recommendations on timelines. Likewise, for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act the dispute and complaint fall within the definition of a trade dispute. I set out in my recommendation timelines which are guidelines only but I urge the parties to expedite the matter. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The complainant should submit clear details of her claim to the respondent outlining changes in her role and level of responsibility since 2004. She should also identify the comparator grade with which she is seeing to align, or with which she is seeking to establish a pay or grading relationship. This should be done within fourteen days of the date of my recommendation. The respondent should establish whether the complainant’s allowance has been adjusted in line with other pay movements since 2004 and should advise the complainant without delay. It should also respond to the complainant’s submission no later than within twenty eight days of receiving it, and such discussions as may be required should also be concluded no later than three months from the complainant making her submission, including on the issue of funding any increase, should one be considered justified. |
Dated: 01/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Re-grading |