ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004164
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Government Agency |
Representatives | Self-represented | HR Manager |
Dispute:
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 - 00004164 | 22/04/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Date of Hearing: 03/11/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)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 and to present any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
In October 2024, the worker raised a grievance that the level of tasks being carried out were above their current grading. The grievance remained unresolved after stage 1, 2 & 3 and was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) under the employers grievance procedure. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker outlined that the responsibilities had grown since commencing in the role. There was relief when some tasks were re-assigned to a higher level post in August/September 2022. Due to the delay in implementing a job evaluation scheme over several years, the worker said that she still carries out higher level tasks which are comparable with higher level posts in other areas. She raised a grievance as these higher level tasks have never been recognised by the employer. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer representative outlined that there is no current mechanism such as a job evaluation scheme to assess the level of the post. The non-approval of a job evaluation scheme is currently in dispute between the employer and union and has been referred to the Labour Court. As the role has never been measured, it is difficult to assess the level of tasks carried out. It has also never been established the extent of the tasks assigned to the higher level post back in August/September 2022. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all submissions prior to and after the hearing. There are two distinct issues that arose at the hearing and during the earlier three stages of the grievance procedure.
Job Evaluation As a dispute on the job evaluation scheme concerns a body of workers and is currently before the Labour Court, I have no authority to make a recommendation on this aspect of the dispute. The worker will have to await developments on this as an Adjudication Officer has no remit on collective issues.
Re-assignment of Tasks to Higher Grade This is a legacy dispute as these tasks were re-assigned back in August/September 2022. These tasks were carried out by the worker for a number of years before being re-assigned. The worker sought recognition for these higher level tasks and this is reflected in the “Notes of Grievance” dated 9th October and 13th November 2024. Significantly, over the three stages of the grievance, the employer did not contest the merit of the claim even though there was no evaluation scheme to resolve the dispute.
In recognition of carrying out these tasks up to August/September 2022, I recommend that the employer pay additional wages of €9,000.00 to the worker. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In recognition of carrying out these tasks up to August/September 2022, I recommend that the employer pay additional wages of €9,000.00 to the worker.
Dated: 07-11-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Re-assignment of tasks |