LCR23319

CD/25/206

DECISION  NO.  LCR23319

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Ms Connolly
Employer Member:	Ms Bisiwe
Worker Member:	Ms Hannick

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No.: ADJ-00043032 (CA-00053346, IR-SC-00000778)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 30 June 2025 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 August 2026.

 

DECISION:

The Worker is employed by the HSE as a Grade VII Business Manager. The dispute before the Court concerns a complaint by the Worker that the HSE failed to appropriately recognise work undertaken by him in his role as a Business Manager in the period from April 2018 to June 2025. 

Page 1

Worker Position

The Worker submits that from April 2018 to June 2025, he undertook work at a Grade VIII level yet was only remunerated as a Grade VII during that time.

In March 2022, the Worker initiated a formal grievance in relation to his grading. The Employer accepted that the work performed by him at that time was at Grade VIII level and his grievance upheld. The Employer benefited from higher grade work while paying him at a lower grade. The Worker was subsequently relieved of the duties appropriate to Grade VIII. 

Given the unique circumstances of this case, the Union seeks a recommendation that the Worker is compensated for the unfairness he suffered when required to carry out duties appropriate to Grade VIII, while remunerated at Grade VII.

Employer Position

In April 2022 the Worker lodged a grievance under Stage One of the Grievance Procedure that his role was not graded properly.  The grievance was not upheld. The Worker appealed that outcome. The manager who conducted the Stage Two appeal held that the request to be upgraded from Grade VII to Grade VIII merited consideration. She made it clear that any regraded post would have to be advertised by open competition.

 

Recommendation

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions made at the hearing.

The Worker sought to have his post as a Business Manager regraded from Grade VII to Grade VIII and progressed a formal grievance about that matter. When that matter was not resolved to his satisfaction he lodged a complaint with the WRC in October 2022. In doing so, the Worker by-passed Stage Three of the HSE grievance procedure. 

The Union, on behalf of the Worker, contends that the Worker should not be required to proceed to Stage Three of the procedure as his grievance was upheld at Stage Two. In support of that position, it relies on the finding of a hospital manager that the request to upgrade the role from Grade VII to Grade VIII merited consideration. The Court has difficulty with the contention that it was open to the Worker to bypass established procedures. The Stage Two process was clearly not yet complete, as a business case was required before the position could be approved for regrading. When the post was not approved for regrading, the Employer informed the Worker that, if he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the Stage Two process, he could appeal to Stage Three of the procedure.

The Worker is aggrieved that he undertook duties for an extended period, which he considers to be, at a higher grade. While the Court acknowledges the Worker’s dissatisfaction with that matter, it is accepted by all parties that there are established and agreed procedures in place in this employment to address workplace disputes. The long-standing position of the Labour Court is to uphold agreed and established dispute resolution procedures. The Court expressed its concern to the parties at the hearing about the way the within complaint has come before the Court.

Time has moved on. The Worker no longer carries out the disputed duties appropriate to a Grade VIII post. The Court recommends that going forward the parties are best served by fully utilising the established procedures in place in the employment, paying attention to the application of those procedures in a fair and timely manner.

The Court so recommends.

Page 2

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
BB	______________________
24th August 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Bernard Byrne, Court Secretary.

Page 3