LCR22527

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY DISABILITY SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's decision No ADJ-00027055.

BACKGROUND:

2. This is an appeal by SIPTU of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ-00027055 on behalf of a Worker with the Daughters of Charity. The appeal concerns the outcome of a job evaluation application under the HSE Job Evaluation Scheme.



DECISION :

This is an appeal by SIPTU of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ-00027055 on behalf of a Worker with the Daughters of Charity. The appeal concerns the outcome of a job evaluation application under the HSE Job Evaluation Scheme.

The Adjudication Officer did not find in favour of the Worker’s claim to have her role regraded to Grade VI but found that a failure to provide written confirmation to the Worker about an error in the job evaluation process merited some compensation and recommended that the Employer offer her a compensatory sum of €2,000 in settlement of her dispute.

SIPTU appealed that recommendation and is seeking that the Court recommend that the Worker’s role is upgraded to a Grade VI, or, in the alternative, that a compensation payment is made to the Worker for the Employer intervening in the job evaluation process outside of procedures.

The background to this claim is a protracted one. The Worker first sought to have her Grade IV role evaluated and upgraded in 2006. Thereafter, there was engagement at local level, a referral to the Rights Commissioner Service, and subsequent communications between SIPTU, the Employer and the HSE.

Unfortunately for the Worker the HSE Job Evaluation Scheme was suspended in 2009, following legislative measures introduced during the economic recession, and not reactivated until late 2016.

In 2017, the Worker applied to the HSE Job Evaluation Scheme to have her role regraded at Grade V. The application was made with the support of her Employer. In January 2019, the HSE Job Evaluation Board communicated that the Worker’s role had been evaluated at Grade VI. The Employer queried the outcome with the HSE and in April 2019 the Job Evaluation Board confirmed that the post was graded as a Grade V.

The Union submits that the Grade VI awarded to the Worker under the scheme was effectively blocked by the Employer, who intervened in the process outside of procedures. It argues that the scheme allows for movement of more than one grade and the Worker should be awarded a Grade VI.

The Employer refutes any interference with the operation of the Job Evaluation Scheme. It submits that when the Grade VI outcome was advised to the parties, it wrote to the HSE to simply query the evaluation of role at Grade VI, given that the application was for a Grade V. The role was subsequently confirmed by the Job Evaluation Board at Grade V. The Employer further submits that it would not have supported an application to regrade the role to a Grade VI, as funding was not sanctioned for such an upgrade, and it would create inequities amongst comparable staff doing the same role.

The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties.

It is accepted that the Worker sought to have her role upgraded to Grade V and not Grade VI. SIPTU is now seeking that the Court reverses the decision of the Job Evaluation Board and recommend that the Worker’s role is upgraded to a Grade VI. The HSE Job Evaluation Scheme is an independent process administered by the HSE.

The Worker’s role has been the subject of an independent assessment under that scheme and the HSE Job Evaluation Board has confirmed her role to be a Grade V. It is not the role of this Court to substitute its own views for those of an independent assessment body or to interfere with assessments made by such bodies. In such circumstances, the Court cannot uphold the Worker’s claim to have her role regarded to Grade VI.

SIPTU submits that the Employer intervened in the job evaluation process outside of procedures, to the Worker’s detriment, and seeks a compensation award.

The employer, for its part, states that it simply requested an explanation of the process in circumstances where an application for a role to be regraded to Grade V was subsequently sanctioned at a Grade VI. The role was subsequently confirmed as a Grade V. The Employer submits that it sought an explanation of how the error was made but did not receive one and that it cannot be held responsible for failures by an external job evaluation body.

SIPTU referred the Court to the rules of the Job Evaluation Scheme which state that a decision of the evaluators is not open to review, and the outcome of an evaluation process is not open to appeal. It submits that the rules of the Scheme do not provide for the Employer to contact the Job Evaluation Board to query processes or question rationale. The Court notes that the rules of the Job Evaluation Scheme allow for a review of a process where an applicant believes such a process was flawed. However, no details were provided to the Court of the Worker availing or seeking to avail of this review process to address her concerns.

Notwithstanding the above, in the view of the Court, it is unsatisfactory that the Employer did not engage with the Worker in January 2019 to advise her that it was querying the outcome of the job evaluation process.

As a result the Worker laboured under the misapprehension that her role had been regraded to Grade VI, until she was advised otherwise. It is also unsatisfactory that no explanation was provided to the Worker by the HSE Job Evaluation Board to clarify why she was advised in January 2019 that her role was assessed at a Grade VI and why this was subsequently rescinded. The lack of transparency and engagement with the worker about the rescinded grade was clearly unhelpful.

The Adjudicator held that a failure to provide the Worker with a written communication about the error in the job evaluation process merited some compensation and recommended that the Employer offer her a compensatory sum of €2,000 in settlement of her dispute. The Employer did not appeal that recommendation.

Taking account of the circumstances of this case, the Court does not uphold the Worker’s claim for her role to be regraded to Grade VI and recommends that the Employer makes an award of €2,000 in full and final settlement of the matter.

The Court finds that the worker’s appeal fails, and the recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is upheld accordingly.

The Court so decides.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Shane Lyons, Court Secretary.