ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004281

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Radiographer	A Health Sector Employer

Representatives

Martina Weir SIPTU

Internal Industrial Relations Officer

Dispute(s):

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 - 00004281	12/05/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Date of Hearing: 30/06/2026

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Summary of Workers Case:

The worker submitted that she is carrying out a valid, genuine role. She returned to the workforce in 2014 following a career break. Over the intervening years the work has changed to such a degree that she is now carrying out the duties of a higher grade.

The worker sought to have her role regraded and initially raised it informally with her line manager in September 2023. However, she then lodged a formal grievance in June 2024. The grievance was upheld at Stage One, but the upgrade was not followed through by the Employer. The worker raised a Stage Two and ultimately a Stage Three grievance wherein the employer held that there was no mechanism to upgrade the worker, holding that the upgrading was outside the grievance procedure and was contrary to the Public Service agreement.

The worker noted that the Public Service Agreement was not in place when the worker first took her grievance. The worker also noted that this dispute relates to an individual issue, not a collective issue, noting that it concerns the working conditions of only one person. The worker also submitted that the Public Service Agreement is due to expire on 30 June 2026.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer is not objecting to the claim and is broadly in agreement with the facts as presented. However, the Employer submitted that the claim is in breach of its grievance procedure:

“The grievance procedure does not cover matters relating to improvements in pay or existing terms and conditions of employment which are of general application, i.e., matters appropriate to the collective bargaining process”

The Employer submitted that it is precluded under Section 5.6 of the Public Service Agreement from entertaining claims such as this:

point 5.6.1 states that “The parties agree that no cost increasing claims for improvements in pay terms and conditions of employment will be initiated or implemented for the duration of the Agreement other than in accordance with the provisions of the Local Bargaining clause”

The Employer submitted that the claim is in breach of the Grievance Procedure; that the claim is in breach of the Public Service Agreement; that the claim, if successful would be in breach of the CPSA Code of Practice, and that the claim is therefore precluded from Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

Conclusions:

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

The parties are not in dispute as to the nature of the complaint – the Worker, who is employed at the level of Senior Radiographer is carrying out the duties of a Clinical Specialist Radiographer. She was granted an upgrade under the Stage One grievance procedure.

The Employer’s argument is that this matter falls into the remit of a collective agreement, the Worker disputes this interpretation arguing that the issue relates to an individual.

The Employer submitted that the dispute relates to matters of a general application and should be dealt as part of the collective bargaining process. The Employer also notes that the parties to the Public Service agreement agreed that no cost increasing claims for improvements in pay terms and conditions of employment well be initiated or implemented for the duration of the agreement.

The Worker noted that the claim for an upgrade was initiated prior to the agreement coming into force.

Having regard to the circumstances of this dispute, I am satisfied that the claim regarding an upgrade was initiated prior to the Public Service Agreement coming into force and accordingly it is not applicable to this dispute. Additionally, I am satisfied that the circumstances of this case relate to an individual rather than having a general application and that it is appropriate for it to be considered under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that the individual worker to which these specific facts apply be re-graded as a Clinical Specialist Radiographer with effect from 1 September 2023 with all the commensurate benefits applying as and from that date.

I recommend that the employer provide the worker with the gender breakdown for the positions of Senior Radiographer and Clinical Specialist Radiographer on an annual basis for the period 2020 to date. These statistics should outline both the regional and national figures.

Dated: 02nd July 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Key Words:

IR Acts – dispute regarding upgrade and carrying out higher duties – individual complaint – upgrade awarded