ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010038
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Retired Social Worker | Local Authority |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00013113-001 | 14/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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 dispute is in relation to a claim by the complainant for the retrospective payment of his salary at Professionally Qualified Social Worker Grade. The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in September 2002 and retired in March 2017. During his employment the complainant was paid as per the Social Worker Grade. The complainant had initiated the claim for regrading in 2014 but this had consistently been rejected by the respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant had completed a degree course and registered with CORU, the registration body. A colleague was graded as a Professionally Qualified Social Worker on completion of her degree course. The complainant was given and performed extra duties which are the responsibility of a professionally qualified social worker |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant did not meet the criteria applicable to the post of Professionally Qualified Social Worker. These criteria specify that the holder must possess specified third level qualifications and be registered with CORU. The qualifications held by the complainant do not meet the requirements of the post. Registration with CORU fulfilled a mandatory legislative requirement and in no way altered or amended his qualifications. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant was appointed to the post of Social Worker following public advertising and an open competition. The advertisement stated that the candidates must “possess a recognised University Degree or Diploma in Social Science or an equivalent qualification.” The complainant held a Diploma in Theology which was accepted as an equivalent qualification by the respondent. As part of the complainant’s appointment process the manager of the authority issued a certificate to the effect that the complainant was fully qualified to discharge the duties of his office. In 2007 the complainant achieved a BSc degree in Counselling and Psychotherapy (Middlesex University). In the meantime legislation was introduced and this provided for the setting up of a Social Workers Register and the requirement for any person wishing to be practise as a Social Worker to apply for inclusion on the Register. The complainant did not have the specified academic qualifications required for registration but existing Social Workers could apply to the regulatory body (CORU) for assessment of professional competence to be registered. The complainant duly applied and was granted registration in March 2013. In August 2014 the complainant applied to the respondent to be placed on the pay scale for Professionally Qualified Social Worker. The request was refused and subsequent requests and a review of the issue by the respondent’s Chief Executive did not change that decision. The complainant retired from employment in March 2017. The nub of the dispute is what triggers the attainment of professional status. The complainant maintains that acceptance by CORU for inclusion on the Register is the trigger whilst the respondent’s view is possession of the specified academic qualifications is also necessary. In 2002 a Director of the respondent accepted that the complainant’s qualifications were equivalent to the recognised qualifications and issued a certificate declaring the complainant to be “fully qualified and competent” to discharge his duties. The introduction of legislation governing the registration of health professionals changed matters and there now was introduced the requirement for registration with CORU. In the notice sent to the respondent in July 2011 CORU stated that “to register, social workers must hold an acceptable qualification or complete an assessment of professional competence.” It was also noted that applicants with qualifications gained outside the state must apply to have that qualification recognised by CORU. The complainant applied for registration, referencing his BSc attained in 2007 together with his relevant experience and underwent a thorough assessment and interview process before being successfully accepted on the Register. I note that failure to achieve registration status could have led to prosecution and fines/imprisonment if the complainant continued to practise as a Social Worker. The respondent had by 2013 been assigned senior roles and duties by the respondent which were at least on a par with those carried out by a colleague who was graded as a Professionally Qualified Social Worker. In all the circumstances I find it difficult to accept the viewpoint of the respondent that the registration with CORU simply fulfils a mandatory legislative requirement and does not change the requirement for specified academic qualifications. The registration with CORU was preceded by an intensive process which assessed the “professional competence” of the complainant to perform the duties of Social Worker. It was only when they were satisfied as to this professional competence that registration was ratified. The regulatory board recognise only a single grade – that of Social Worker. It is registration with CORU that defines who can practise as a Social Worker. The respondent did not seem to have any doubts about the complainant’s professional competence to take on highly responsible positions when it came to the allocation of duties. I therefore believe that the case made for regrading by the complainant is persuasive. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Whilst the registration with CORU took place in March 2017, I note that the complainant first applied for re-grading in August 2014 and renewed the request in January 2017. The complainant retired in March 2017 so I believe that the matter is best dealt with by way of compensation. I therefore recommend that the respondent pay to the complainant the sum of €16,000.00 as full and final settlement of this matter. |
Dated: September 12th 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly
Key Words:
|