Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Provider

Representatives

Forsa Trade Union

HR Manager

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 - 00002940

01/08/2024

The dispute concerns the point of the incremental scale at which the Worker should have been placed following her promotion and whether there has been an overpayment.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in 1982. In January 2020 her post was upgraded from Grade 5 to Grade 6. The Worker received confirmation of the promotion on 8 February 2020. The Worker accepted the duties of the post and was placed on the sixth point of the Grade 6 salary scale. On 27 October 2023 the Worker was advised that she had been placed on the wrong point of the salary scale and as a consequence had been overpaid. The Employer advised the Worker that the overpayment occurred between 16 November 2020 and 27 November 2022 and amounted to €3526.74.

The Worker disputes the overpayment on the basis of her interpretation of the relevant Circular governing the payment of salary following a promotion. In this regard the Worker drew my attention to the following provisions from the Circular:

“(vi) .…., where the minimum of the new salary scale is less than existing pay, the officer may enter the new scale at the point nearest but not below existing pay plus one increment…..

(vii) Where an officer to whom sub-paragraph……(vi)…. applies, has been on a fixed salary or on the maximum of his existing salary scale for at least three years at the date of his promotion…..he may enter the new scale in accordance with the appropriate provision and with a further additional increment…..”.

The Worker outlined that the Grade 5 salary scale consisted of seven points including two Long Service Increments/LSIs, that she had been approximately eight years on the maximum of that scale and that the minimum of the Grade 6 salary scale was less than her existing pay. She stated that as a result, she was firstly entitled to transfer to the fourth point of the Grade 6 scale on the basis of that being the nearest point above her existing salary and that she was also entitled to two additional increments as provided for in paragraphs (vi) and (vii) of the Circular outlined above - thereby correctly bringing her to the sixth point of the Grade 6 scale.  

The Worker cited emails – copies of which I was furnished – which stated that the applicable salary provisions/Circular operated by the Employer was issued prior to the introduction of LSIs. The Worker also outlined her dealings with the Employer in relation to the overpayment and her eventual successful attempts to pause recoupment deductions from her salary until the matter was resolved.

It is the position of the Worker that there has been no error as regards the incremental point of the Grade 6 salary scale on which she was placed following her promotion and that consequently no overpayment has occurred and no recoupment was due.

The Employer outlined the background including in relation to the Complainant’s promotion, the disputed overpayment and the relevant Grievance Process. The Employer confirmed that deductions to recoup the overpayment were currently on hold pending resolution of the dispute and the HR Manager’s role in that regard was acknowledged by the Worker.

The Employer stated that the Worker was placed on the incorrect point of the Grade 6 salary scale following her promotion. The Employer explained this occurred due to a mistake in the application of the relevant salary provisions outlined in the Circular. In that regard the Employer explained that instead of moving to the second LSI on the Grade 6 scale, the Worker should only have moved to the first LSI at which point she would be credited with one year’s service to reflect the provisions of sub-paragraph (vii) of the Circular. This the Employer stated was in accordance with its “custom and practice” as increments are applied on an annual basis. As the first LSI on the Grade 6 salary scale was three years long, the Worker would then be entitled to move to the second LSI on the Grade 6 scale after two years service instead of three.

The Employer stated that although the position with regard to LSI’s was not specifically addressed in the relevant Circular governing the salary operational guidelines, nonetheless transfer to a new salary scale should reflect the application of annual increments. Such an approach was consistent with how promotions to a higher salary scale applied across its workforce and to do otherwise would have broader ramifications for the sector.

It is the position of the Employer that the Worker was placed on the incorrect point of the Grade 6 salary scale as the impact of the LSIs was not properly factored in at the outset and that recoupment of the overpayment of €3526.74 was properly due.

In conducting my investigation into this dispute, I have considered all submissions, documentation and information provided by the parties and the following are my conclusions:

·        The salary provisions outlined in the Circular governing starting pay on promotion, are largely based on “point of the scale” or incremental point. Both the Worker and the Employer agree the Grade six salary scale consists of seven points and the number 7 is denoted in the salary scale documentation; 

·        Whilst I accept the Employer’s position that increments are generally awarded on an annual basis – because the Circular was issued prior to the introduction of LSIs, there is nothing in my view which stipulates that a three year LSI constitutes three incremental points. Indeed if I were to interpret it that way, then the Grade 6 scale would consist of far more than seven points. Nor is there any provision set out in the Circular which states that the length of an LSI may be reduced by one year in lieu of granting “a further additional increment” as provided for at sub-paragraph (vii) of the Circular;   

·        Given that it is not in dispute that the Worker was on the maximum of the Grade 5 salaryscale for at least three years, I conclude that in accordance with the provisions of sub-paragraphs (vi) and (vii) of the relevant Circular, the Worker was entitled to be awarded two additional increments following her promotion to Grade 6  – thereby correctly placing her on the sixth point of the Grade 6 scale.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. In light of my conclusions I make the following recommendations:

1.      That the Worker is not liable for the recoupment of any monies as a result of her promotion to the sixth point of the Grade 6 scale in 2020;

2.      That the Employer refund the Worker the overpayment money already deducted from her salary – stated in the course of the adjudication hearing to be €790;

3.      That Recommendations 1 and 2 are being made my me on a strictly “Red Circled” basis – solely specific and confined to the Worker in this dispute;

4.      That the Employer review its salary provisions for promotion to take account of the position of LSIs and its legitimate wish to apply consistent practice across its sector.

Incremental Point, Salary Scale