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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re-grading