ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009167
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Medical Manpower Manager | Health Sector Employer |
Dispute:
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21st September 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seán Reilly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and 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 was in dispute with the Employer in relation to her appropriate pay grade.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant said she has worked as Medical Manpower Manager (MMM) at the stated location since 20th May 2013. She said that initially she took on that role on a temporary basis at her pre-existing grade (Grade 6) and she was provided with a Specified Purpose Contract setting out that she was to cover for the vacant post in MM/HR Department with an expected end date of 19th November 2013. Thereafter, the Complainant was permanently appointed to the MMM post on 6th December 2014 at her substantive Grade 6 rate.
The Complainant submitted detailed background on how and why the MMM posts came about.
The Complainant said initially the Respondent sought to introduce the post at ‘Functional Officer’ Grade. The Complainant said that following a National Meeting between the Employer and a named Trade Union they sent out further details stating these were senior management appointments and gave specifics on what the roles should cover. The Complainant said that therefore there is no doubt that that MMM posts were deemed to be at senior management level from the initial set up.
The Complainant said the named initial post holder was appointed to the MM post at Grade 8 pay scale and he held the post from 1st February 2001 to 18th March 2008, some total 7 years until he moved to an alternative position. The Complainant said that thereafter in the midst of the moratorium on recruitment and allowances the MMM post was temporarily filled as follows:
CF ......................... ADON: From 1st October 2008 to 1st January 2009 MH …………..……….. ADON: From 16th March 2010 to March 2011 JD ……………..………. HR Manager: From 19th March 2012 to 2nd September 2012 The Complainant…Grade 6: From 20th May 2013 to date.
The Complainant wrote to her Line Manager, the HR Manager, on 15th December 2015 seeking parity with her MMM colleagues within the Group, who they said are all Grade 8. She copied the letter to the General Manager, the Group Director of HR and the Group Manager.
The Complainant said that the Group Manager of the MMMs Group immediately wrote to the Group Director of HR setting out his support for her and he stated: “In view of the fact that all other MMs in the Group are at Grade 8 she should be regarded too as an 8” and “the previous MMM at..was a grade 8 and doesn’t under stand how we arrived at a Grade 6.” On 13th January 2016, he also wrote to the General Manager stating his support for the Complainant and offering any support or information to ensure her post is upgraded. The Complainant said that the Group Manager is well placed to judge the role and responsibilities undertaken by her as he frequently met with her and her MMM colleagues.
On 30th December 2015, the HR Manager responded to the Complainant stating that she fully supported her upgrade and had discussed this with both the General Manager and the Group HR Director.
On 13th January 2016, the General Manager replied to the Complainant acknowledging her significant achievements in her role as MMM and he assured her that he would make every effort to progress the issue of her grading.
The Complainant said that to this end she was encouraged to complete an application for upgrading under the impending a National Job Evaluation Scheme (JES). The Complainant said that the JES reopened on 1st September 2016 and she duly submitted the comprehensive JES Application Form on 4th November 2016 to her line managers, the HR Manager and the General Manager. Around 14th July 2017, the Complainant’s JES Application Form was returned with some suggested amendments. She said that while these suggestion were well intended, it was not reasonable for management to have held her Application Form for this considerable period (some 9 months) when it should have been rightly been processed according to the agreed procedure. She said that in all events it transpired that the JES only deals with applicant from Grade 3 to Grade 6 and therefore the process was an inappropriate one for dealing with her complaint. The Complainant said the JES process could not possibly deliver the rate for the job for her as the rate is pitched at Grade 8, which is not covered by the JES thus far.
The Complainant said there is support from her line management structure for her seeking the rate for the job applicable within the Group for her post as MMM. She said there is no dispute with the Employer that she is carrying out the full role and responsibilities of the MM post and that it is the same post as her colleagues within the Group, all of whom receive the rate for the job at Grade 8. The Complainant seeks that she should rightly be on the correct rate for the job effective from the date of her letter to the HR Manager and that she should be recognised as a Grade 8.
The Complainant said that there is significant documentary evidence supporting the existing pay rate for the MMM post (which she submitted to the Hearing), including:
a) Appointment order of previous permanent MM post holder and relevant correspondence in respect of that post holder’s salary.
b) Table setting out existing MMM’s in the Group
c) Various job specifications setting out the rate for the job (Grade 8) for the MMM posts.
The Complainant said there is no dispute with Employer that the role of MMM within the Group has a pay rate at Grade 8 level.
The Complainant said there is no dispute with the Employer that she has carried out this role since 20th May 2013. She said the previous MM Post Holder (for 7 years) was paid at Grade 8. The Complainant said she has carried out this role for over 4 years at Grade 6, which is significantly less pay than her Group counterparts.
The Complainant said that concession of this claim presents no consequential difficulties for the Employer in that her counterparts within the Group are already in receipt of the pay rate she seeks. She said that nor can it be deemed cost increasing in that she is merely seeking to have the correct rate for the job applied.
The Complainant said that she has the support of her management team in relation to her claim.
The Complainant said that the JES cannot possibly resolve this complaint/claim as it does not encompass grades higher than Grade 6 and it is unfair and unjust to her to continue on the wrong rate for her job whilst her colleagues enjoy the proper rate for the MMM job.
The Complainant said the question posed by the Group Manager in respect of how or why the Employer should have unilaterally devalued a nationally agreed rate for the job is one that remains unanswered. Such managerial decisions, taken simply because one has the wherewithal and power to so do, are seldom fair to the employee and in this specific instance takes unfair advantage of her.
The Complainant said she seeks the rate for the job applicable to her colleagues within the Group, effective from 15th December 2015.
The Complainant submitted ADJ-00007234, LCR20862 and LCR20616 in support of their position.
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer was rejecting the Complainant’s claim.
The Employer said the Complainant is employed by them as Medical Manpower Manager (MMM) and is paid at Grade 6, and she has worked in that post since 19th August 2014.
The Employer said the role of MMM was introduced in 2001, as a HR role to manage and co-ordinate the recruitment and management of medical staff in acute hospitals. The intention was that the posts would be filled by medical staff, but did not transpire to be the case in many hospitals.
The Employer said the appointees were appointed at a variety of administrative grades and that situation remains the case across the Country today. They said that across the Country the MMM role varies in duties and grades, but seems to range from Grade 5 to Grade 6 in smaller hospitals and from Grade 6 to Grade 8 in larger hospitals.
The Employer referred to and listed the hospitals that are in the same group as the one the Complainant works in. The Employer submitted the following in relation to the hospitals in the Group:
Model Beds Staff Numbers Medical Staff Numbers
- 4 542 2,500 567
- 2 66 517
- 3 170 646 91
- 3 306 985 150
- 2 63 270 23
- 3 316 1,535 204
- 3 331 1,449 166
(n.b. L is where the Complainant is employed)
The Employer said that across the Group the HR Function, including the MM work is managed / co-ordinated in a variety of ways and under taken by different grades.
The Employer said that G is the largest hospital site in the Group and has a Grade 8 post in HR, namely the MMM and HR Manager, both have clear functions and they run almost separate departments, due to the size of the staff they are serving.
- has a Grade 8 HR Manager and now a Grade 8 MMM and again run almost separate departments. The Employer said that historically the MMM post was always a Grade 7 post and the existing post holder secured an upgrade only in recent time from Grade 7 to Grade 8.
- currently one Grade 7 and one Grade 8 HR post managing the whole HR function, including MM work, between them. The current MMM moved from the HR Manager post to the MMM post and she retained her Grade 8. The HR Manager was then filled as a Grade 7 post and currently remains vacant.
- is the smallest hospital in the Group, the HR work is co-ordinated by a Grade 5 who manages both the HR and MM work supported by the MMM in G.
- has one Grade 8 post, who manages both the HR and MM functions together.
In relation to the location where the Complainant is employed the Employer said that since 2008, the MMM post was paid at Grade 7. They said the 3 people to hold the MMM post previous to the Complainant were transferred from nurse management and were paid at the ADON salary grade, analogous to Grade 7, namely:
- CF in post from March 2008 to February 2011
- MH in post from April 2010 to February 2011
- HD in post from 19th March 2011
The Employer said that when the then HR Manager resigned on 31st August 2012 the then MMM was appointed on 3rd September 2012 and she assumed both the MMM role and the HR Manager roles, at Grade 8, until assistance was provided when the Complainant was recruited on 20th May 2013.
The Employer said that due to the difficulties in obtaining approval to fill the MMM post, during the staff moratorium, the MMM post was pitched at Grade 5 and above, following negotiations with the IMPACT Trade Union. Management then approved the filling of the post. The job was advertised internally within the Employer, at Grade 5 and above (copy of advert attached). The Employer said the Complainant was the successful candidate. They said that at the time the Complainant was on a CAWT project post and transferred over on her existing terms and conditions as a Grade 6, while her substantive post was a Staff Nurse within the Intellectual Disability Services.
The Employer said that the Complainant is seeking the position be regraded to that of a Grade 8. Management do not accept that this level of grading is appropriate, however they do accept that the workload within the whole HR Department has increased in volume and complexity over the last 2 years and this has impacted on all members of the team, including the MMM role.
The Employer said that it is difficult to compare the role of MMM within each of the hospitals, but the HR Department at the location where the Complainant works functions effectively due to the cohesive working relationships of the small number of employees in the team. They said that all of the HR Team undertake multiple duties and provide cross cover, it is the only way that the Department can function. They said that all members of the HR Team undertake some MM work and there are not enough staff in the location for HR and MM functions to be separated into two departments.
The Employer said that there has always been and currently is a clear line management and reporting structure within the HR Department, where the MM (either Grade 7 or Grade 6) reports to the HR Manager Grade 8. The MMM has to obtain approval to sanction finance expenditure, such as medical agency bookings from either the HR Manager, Grade 8 or Assistant General Manager, Grade 8 or the General Manager.
The Employer said that the current organisational structure within the HR Department works well, and roles and are clearly defined, therefore, the Employer position is that the MM post is graded at the correct grade for the level of responsibilities and the Complainant has no claim for upgrade.
The Employer said that notwithstanding the foregoing, the matter of re-grading is precluded under the terms of the PSA and management and trade unions have recently agreed the re-introduction of the Job Evaluation Scheme (JES) following on from the agreement to regularise employees under the terms of Circular 17/2013. The Employer said that the JES covers grades 3 to 6 and it would be appropriate in this case for a job evaluation to be considered to a Grade 7. Within the JES there will be the opportunity for the roles undertaken by the Complainant to be evaluated in relation to grading. The Employer said that management have supported the Complainant in a submission to job evaluation process for this purpose. The Employer representatives present (her line managers), in commenting on the Complainant’s submission, stated that they did support her claim for upgrading, but that was to Grade 7 and not to Grade 8.
For all the forgoing reasons the Employer sought that the Complainant’s claim be rejected and that their position be upheld.
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute.
I have carefully considered the evidence and the submissions of the parties and I have concluded as follows.
I do not accept, as submitted by the Respondent that the Complainant should use the Job Evaluation Scheme (JES) to process her case as apart from the problems, (lack of retrospection etic) with that Scheme, it cannot award her the grade she seeks.
I note that the job or position the Complainant successfully applied for was advertised as:
“Medical Manpower/Human Resources Officer (Grade V and above or equivalent grade)”
This is the position the Complainant successfully applied for and it should be noted there was no guarantee or expectation that she would be graded at Grade 8.
I note that grading at Grade 8 is not universally applied to all employees performing the Medical Manpower Manager role and it is clear to me that in each location the appropriate grade is decided by the facts and circumstances in each location and that decision takes into account the existing grade of the individual involved. I note that not all those who performed the task at the same location as the Complainant were paid at Grade 8, accordingly I cannot accept that it was established that Grade 8 was the grade to apply to the post.
However I do accept that it was established, and is not seriously disputed, that the Complainant should be upgraded from her current level of grading.
In all the circumstances I now recommend as a full and final settlement of the matter that the Complainant be upgraded to Grade 7 with effect from 6th December 2014. For the removal of any doubt I wish to confirm that this recommendation is particular to the unique facts and circumstances of the instant case and that it cannot and will not be used or quoted by either party or any other party in any other case or dispute.
I so recommend.
Dated: 20/11/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seán Reilly
Key Words: Grading and pay rate.