Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer (2)

A Care Service provider

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-00027139-001

19/03/2019

The Worker is a Clerical Officer grade 5 and commenced employment with the Employer on 13 May 1975.

In 2016 the parent body over the Employer re-introduced a Job Evaluation Scheme which had been suspended for 8 years due to the financial crisis.

The Worker said that it emerged that a number of applications were held back by the Employer and were not submitted for evaluation under the Job Evaluation Scheme. The delays were clarified in an email of 8 March 2018, where the Employer said that they were not sent on for evaluation on the “false premise” that there was no funding available.

The delays resulted in notice to take industrial action but were resolved on the basis that recognition would be given for the delays experienced. The application was advanced, and it was deemed successful for upgrade. However, the Worker claims that if she had known that the parent body had left the application sit for 15 months without offering any feedback or explanation, she would have addressed the matter sooner, if it wasn’t for the Worker’s persistence to question the status of the application they might have never been processed. The Worker claims that the appointment for regrading should have been made in September 2017 rather than in December 2018 as was the case.

The Worker said that she made a representation to the Employer that the delays be considered and taken into account when the date of appointment was determined, but no account was taken. The Workers said that the Respondent had the benefit of her operating at a higher level, and that case is one of a very few unique cases.

The Worker said that she submitted her application for job evaluation from grade 5 to grade 6 on 21 March 2017, she had applied to have the post evaluated in 2008 but that did not take place as the scheme at that time was withdrawn. The Worker said that she undertook substantial additional duties and responsibilities in that time.

The Worker said that due to the extraordinary delays and unusual circumstances in processing this job evaluation, she has asked that the appointment date be reviewed to acknowledge the delays.

The Employer said that it is a voluntary not for profit organisation and provides day and residential services for adults and children with intellectual disabilities.

A job evaluation scheme was available for clerical grades for some years. However, due to the downgrade of the economy that stopped in 2008 but was reintroduced from 1 September 2016. The Employer said that a condition of the scheme is that the financial implications for the scheme had to be met by the Employers existing financial allocation.

The Employer said that the Worker had been employed by it since May 1975, and prior to this evaluation she was employed as a Clerical Officer (Grade 5) and since the evaluation she was upgraded to Grade 6 with the effect from 18 December 2018.

The Employer said that the Worker applied for the job evaluation review under the scheme on 3 May 2017.

The Employer said that that due to financial constraints it was indicated on the application form that the it was not possible to meet the upgrade under the then existing financial allocation. The Workers trade union got involved and the application was expedited. The Worker was invited to interview in late 2018 and approved.

The Employer highlighted that no additional funding was being provided to fund the scheme. The scheme was to operate within existing resources. At the time the Employer was operating with a substantial audited deficit in 2017 and there was no funding available. It said that it could not afford the additional cost.

The Employer said that there is a grievance procedure open to employees if there is a decision not to process an application for job evaluation review. The Worker never utilised this option.

The Employer referred to the Labour Courts findings in University Hospital Waterford and Forsa Trade Union, LCR21959 where the union sought to have the claimants upgrade back dated. It found,

“The employer asserted to the Court that there is no provision in the scheme for backdating the upgrading of a person who is upgraded as a result of the agreed job evaluation scheme. The Trade Union was unable to put before the Court any instance where an upgrading which arose as a result of the operation of the nationally agreed scheme was backdated.

In all of the circumstances the Court is unable to recommend an alteration to what appear to be the agreed terms of a national job evaluation scheme. The upgrading of the Claimant should take effect from 4th December 2017.”

The Employer also referred to a similar matter of Letterkenny University Hospital KSE and A Worker, LCR21820, it found,

“Having carefully considered the Parties’ submissions and the relevant extracts from the HSE Job Evaluation Scheme as posted on the HSE website, the Court finds the Worker’s claims for an acting allowance and for retrospective ‘recognition for incremental assimilation purposes of his service from 23rd October 2015’ are not well-founded for the reasons advanced by the HSE.”

I have carefully considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties in relation to this dispute.

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and concerns a claim by the Worker that due to delay the Worker’s application under the Job Evaluation Scheme was held back and that no account was taken of that when the final determination was made to upgrade the Worker to grade 6.

The Worker said that due to the extraordinary delays in processing this job evaluation, she has lost out financially and this will have ongoing percussions for the calculations of her future earnings. She asked that the appointment date following the Job Evaluation Scheme be reviewed to acknowledge these delays.

The Respondent has said that in 2017 it was not in a position to fund the upgrade, that delays for Job Evaluation Schemes are not unusual, there are significant backlogs and there is nothing unusual about this application situation. Once the Employee signs the relevant documentation all monies due will be paid in line with the date of approval of the Job Evaluation upgrade.

Having considered the matter, I am satisfied that the Job Evaluation Scheme was agreed at a national level and that it creates the basis for upgrading staff. I note that the scheme was suspended for a time and I understand that there are backlogs. I also note two important aspects of the scheme, firstly, the ability to pay within the existing financial allocation, which is very relevant in this case, since the Employer’s finances are dictated from elsewhere and were in a deficit and secondly, there was no time limit set out in the scheme, from what I can see, that dictates when the review should be held. I am aware that the case was expedited with the Trade Unions involvement.

I am very mindful that this very issue has been looked at previously by the Labour Court in the cases opened to be by the Employer in its submission. In particular I note the findings in University Hospital Waterford and Forsa Trade Union, LCR21959 where the union sought to have the claimants upgrade back dated. Where it found,

“The employer asserted to the Court that there is no provision in the scheme for backdating the upgrading of a person who is upgraded as a result of the agreed job evaluation scheme. The Trade Union was unable to put before the Court any instance where an upgrading which arose as a result of the operation of the nationally agreed scheme was backdated.

In all of the circumstances the Court is unable to recommend an alteration to what appear to be the agreed terms of a national job evaluation scheme. …”

I would hold a similar view as the Labour Court findings, in the within dispute.

Accordingly, I would recommend that the Worker would accept the date of the decision of the review interview as the proper date. I do not recommend any backdating of the upgrade.

The dispute is not well founded.

Industrial Relations Act 1969 – Section 13 – Trade Dispute – job evaluation scheme