ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An employee | A Public Body |
Representatives |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00025209-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 13 of the IndustrialRelations Act 1969 following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.
Background:
The Complainant seeks retrospection for a regrading she received following 4 years. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was overlooked when a benchmarking exercise in 2005 resulted in her colleagues being re-banded from band 4 to band 3. This was an error which was eventually corrected in December 2014 following multiple representations from her union. It is argued that efforts to resolve this had been going on for 4 years and that the Respondent failed to place the Complainant at the top of the scale when she was assimilated. The position of the union is that the Complainant has been disproportionately disadvantaged financially compared to her colleagues and retrospection should be paid. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant is seeking to be paid as a Band 3 from its introduction in 2005. There was no basis for her to be regraded as she did not qualify as having direct patient contact. In 2014, due to an increase in her workload her manager submitted a business case seeking approval for additional hours. The business case was approved and the Complainant was appointed as a Band 3 from 1st July 2014. It should be noted that this was technically incorrect as the additional work did not justify the regrading and the concession of the grade was in breach of the correct procedure to move between the salary bands. The normal rules require staff to come through the competitive process. In 2016 the Complainant began to seek retrospection going back to 2005. It should be noted that if retrospection is granted the cost will be in the region of €12,000 to €15,000. In that regard the claim is (1) cost increasing contrary to the Public Service Agreement and (2) falls into a significant claim in terms of the cost and the possible precedent it might create. |
Recommendation:
Whatever the misgivings of the Respondent surrounding the appointment of the Complainant to the band 3, the fact is that she was appointed to that band following the business case made by management. I find that the circumstances which existed for her in 2005 were not the same as existed in 2014 and therefore I cannot recommend retrospection to that point. However, in order to draw a line under this dispute, I recommend that the Complainant be offered the sum of €2,000 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Dated: 22nd August 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: