Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

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 - 00003712

28/01/2025

The Worker is employed in a role specific to his area of the health service. In 2021 the Worker’s Union successfully secured a collective agreement re-grading that role to Grade V. At the time there were nine people employed in this role. Two retired shortly thereafter and the Worker was appointed via a panel into one of the vacancies in August 2023. The Worker was not granted Grade V. His colleague who was ahead of him on the panel and got the other post was granted Grade V.

The Worker’s Union sought to resolve this and ultimately had to submit a grievance in October 2023. While at first the grievance was rejected, in February 2024 management agreed to the re-grading which was to be backdated to August 2023.

The Employer then failed to resolve the issue over the intervening 15 months.

The Union secured an agreement in 2021 which provided for a revaluation of the relevant role. It was clear at the time that this was for the role itself and not the nine individuals who occupied it. The Worker is entitled to the benefit of that agreement. Instead, the Worker has been seriously disadvantaged in pay and other terms and conditions of employment while this matter has dragged on for years and caused him stress and upset.

They are seeking that the Worker be appropriately graded with his remuneration backdated to 2021 when the roles were re-grading, as he was acting up into the role at that time.

The Employer would accept that this matter could have been handled better.

Unfortunately, after the Worker raised the issue a recruitment embargo was implemented. This created an uncertainty in how best to handle the Worker’s case. The embargo also fixed the employer with recruitment issues for a number of key decision-making post. This delayed resolution.  

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

It is important to note from the outset that this is not a regrading case in which a worker has seen their role change over time and is seeking to have their actual role recognised. The issue of the grade associated with this role has already been determined by way a of collective agreement and collective re-grading exercise. The Employer has failed to appropriately apply this agreement to the Worker despite him clearly coming under its scope.

During the course of engagement between the parties it was first suggested that that agreement might only apply to the nine workers occupying the role at the time of the agreement rather than to the role itself. That does not make sense. The regrading exercise focused on two employees as a representative sample of the work of role, rather than on nine individuals. The associated correspondence from the time focuses entirely on the role itself.

Most importantly the Employer already conceded this in practice by placing the first permanent new hire after the agreement into Grade V. For whatever reason they only failed to apply the agreement to the Worker, who was number two on the panel. It is not acceptable for an Employer to deal with workers in such a changeable and unstable way when making significant decisions that affect their livelihoods.  

The parties previously agreed that the Worker should move to Grade V and that this should be backdated to the 21st of August 2023 and a HR form was submitted on the 4th of March 2024 to formalise this. The Employer has failed to process this or adequately explain why they have not done so.

While I appreciate the pressures put on individual members of management, it was not acceptable for the Employer to engage with the Worker in this way.