Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Grade 7 hospital manager

A Hospital

Representatives

Claire O Connor

 SIPTU

Eamonn Ross

Employee Relations Department

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000778

19/10/2022

The worker is a Grade 7 hospital manager. In March 2022 he initiated a grievance in relation to his grading as a Grade 7 business manager in the medicine and emergency department directorate.

The grievance procedure commenced in April 2022. The worker submitted a substantial report outlining his current and previous working roles.

The worker's manager provided a written review of his grievance on the 30 May 2022.  She indicated her support that the worker's current post did merit consideration to be upgraded from a Grade 7 to a Grade 8 level. She upheld his grievance.

Despite this outcome, the worker’s role was not upgraded to a Grade 8.

The worker is a Grade 7 hospital manager and submitted that he performs like work to that of a Grade 8 hospital manager.

The worker's case was that the employer's position flagrantly contradicts its own findings in the internal grievance outcome.

The employer has not disputed the outcome of the grievance procedure that the worker should be a Grade 8.

The worker relied on Labour Court Recommendation no. 22972 which provided that a Grade 7 manager in Letterkenny University Hospital should be upgraded to a Grade 8 as the work being performed by that worker was that of a Grade 8 post.

The worker provided a detailed witness statement and appendices to support his application. He explained that the salary difference could be between €36,000 and €81,000 depending on the point in the scale he was placed.

The employer disputed that the worker’s grievance was upheld. The worker had completed stage II of the grievance procedure and had chosen not to go to stage III.

The employer did not dispute that it could be possible to regrade the worker's post. However, it submitted that if this happened, the workers appointment into the new role could only be following open competition.

The employer explained that ultimately the hosptial group (IEHG) decided not to regrade the worker’s post.

The employer submitted that the quoted Letterkenny case had no bearing on the facts of this case and it was not an authority that should be followed.

An earlier referral to the Labour Court by a colleague of the worker, resulted in the Labour Court requesting the employer to look at his colleague's role and take any grade 8 tasks away from him. This has been carried out and no tasks were taken from his role.

The employer submitted that comparing the worker's role to a comparator in Cork University Hospital was not appropriate. Cork University hospital was four times bigger than the hospital in which the worker worked.

The employer did not accept that the role been carried out by the worker was a Grade 8 role. It was satisfied that it was a Grade 7 role.

The worker did not conclude the internal grievance procedure. The worker’s manager who issued a report on his grievance did not have authority to upgrade his role or appoint the worker into a grade 8 role.

The employer accepted that the worker was on a panel to be appointed to a grade 8 post, but that was for a different role. It explained that a worker cannot automatically transfer from one panel to another.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I accept the good faith of both sides in the complaint.  While the complaint has taken a lot of time to reach this stage, there have been linked cases which have been determined during this time. 

The parties accept that the hospital manager issued her findings on 30 May 2022 to the workers grievance. 

The employer submits that the hosptial manager did not have the power to upgrade the worker’s role to that of a Grade 8. 

I have reviewed the letter of the 30 May 2022 and note that the findings of the hospital manager upholding of the worker’s grievance was not without a qualification. The final paragraph of the letter of the hospital manager set out

"I do wish it to be noted, from having previous discussions with the IEHG Director of HR with regard to the regrading of posts, regraded posts will need to be advertised by open competition as there is no other mechanism for appointments into regraded posts, should your submission be successful."

From a plain reading of this letter, the determination of the hospital manager was not considered by her to be a final decision on the workers grievance. 

I also note that in the Letterkenny case quoted by the worker, an assessment was made of the worker’s role by an agreed assessor undertaking an independent job evaluation process.  While the basis for that process was disputed by the employer (who described that case to be an outlier where agreed national procedures were not followed) the facts in this case are that the hospital manager’s findings of 30 May 2022 was not a final assessment of the regrading process and appointment of the worker in a level 8 role.

While it is clear that the worker performs to a very high level, it is the role of management to decide on the allocation of resources and the grading of posts.    

On those facts, I cannot recommend the concession of the worker’s claim.

Grading of post