Recommendation Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:  IR - SC - 00004940

Parties:

Dispute:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Date of Hearing:             09/07/2026

1       Procedure:

1.2      In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended), this dispute was assigned to me by the Director General.  At a hearing on July 9th 2026, I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to put forward their positions in relation to the dispute.  In accordance with section 8 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, the parties are not named in this Recommendation, but are referred to as “the worker” and “the employer.”

1.2      The worker was represented by Ms Eileen Smith of the Fórsa trade union.  The worker’s line manager and the head of HR represented the employer. 

2.      Outline of the Dispute:

2.1      The unit where the worker is employed is responsible for the reimbursement on a national basis of medical and healthcare contractors, suppliers and pharmaceutical companies.  The worker is a grade III clerical officer and has been in her role since 1999.  She and two colleagues report to the facilities manager, although one person is currently on a career break. 

2.2      In July 2023, a new financial management system was introduced which streamlined the payment processes, but which had the effect of extending the worker’s duties beyond the original scope of her role.  Some of the duties assigned to her as a result of the introduction of the new system were formerly done by staff in the accounts department who are at grade IV and above.  With the support of Fórsa, the worker engaged with management and the HR function to seek a grade review, but without success.  In August 2024, the head of HR advised her to apply to apply to have her job evaluated.  The worker completed the job evaluation application form which was signed off by her line manager and the head of HR.  The next in line for approval of her application was the assistant national director of the payments unit.  This manager made enquiries and decided that the SAP requisitioner task which the worker does since 2023 arising from the streamlining of the payments system was not equivalent to approving a purchase order, that it wasn’t a financial role and that a job evaluation exercise wasn’t required.

2.3      On December 30th 2024, the worker lodged a grievance regarding her case that, since July 2023, she has been allocated financial duties and that her job is at a higher grade that her current grade III clerical role.  Payments to service-providers cannot proceed until the worker verifies and authorises the invoices in compliance with statutory deadlines and national financial regulations.  The union’s position is that the outcome of stages 1 and 2 of the grievance process did not address the core issues of grade alignment, documentation of duties or the refusal to progress with the job evaluation exercise.  On April 4th 2025, the grievance progressed to stage 3 and was heard by the assistant national director of the payments unit.  After four months, with no outcome from that process, on August 15th 2025, the union lodged this grievance with the WRC.

3.      Recommendation:

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

3.2      I am mindful of the fact that this worker has been trying to have the changes to her role addressed since the middle of 2023.  Her application to have her job evaluated met a dead end.  Although she raised a grievance in December 2024, more that a year and a half later, in July 2026, there has been no outcome from that process.  Having read the union’s submission, it seems to me that there have been significant changes to the worker’s job and that these changes require to be evaluated to determine if her job is correctly positioned at grade III of the clerical scale. 

3.3      To reach a resolution of this dispute, I recommend that the employer provides an outcome to the stage 3 grievance which was heard on April 4th 2025.  I further recommend that the worker’s application to have her job formally evaluated is signed off and progressed through the job evaluation process. 

Dated:   24-07-2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Key Words:

Grievance procedure, job evaluation exercise