Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Social Worker

Health Service Provider

Representatives

Self-Represented

In House 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 - 00005643

11/11/2025

The Worker is employed by the Employer as a Social Worker and has approximately twelve years' service. The dispute arises from the implementation of a national Career Pathway Framework designed to provide a progression route from Staff Grade Social Worker to Senior Social Worker.

The Worker contends that she met the eligibility criteria communicated to her at the commencement of the process and that, after she had invested considerable time and effort in pursuing the opportunity, additional criteria were introduced which rendered her ineligible for direct progression. The Worker submits that this caused her significant frustration and distress and that there was a lack of transparency and accountability throughout the process.

The Employer rejects the assertion that the criteria changed. It submits that the Career Pathway Framework was established through a nationally agreed process and that the relevant eligibility requirements were fixed from the outset. The Employer accepts that there was confusion in communications issued during the process and that an apology was subsequently offered to the Worker in that regard.

The Worker outlined that she has worked as a Staff Grade Social Worker for almost twelve years and has been performing duties which she believes are properly associated with Senior Social Worker level for a considerable period. She described undertaking complex casework, mentoring students, facilitating groups, delivering presentations and assuming responsibilities previously conducted by a Senior Social Worker who was not replaced.

The Worker stated that, following an announcement regarding the Career Pathway initiative, she was informed that she was included amongst those potentially eligible for progression. She understood the eligibility criteria to require five years' service within the HSE and inclusion on a live panel as of November 2022. She believed she met both requirements and received correspondence which, in her view, confirmed that the documentation she had submitted was sufficient.

The Worker stated that she subsequently received notification that her documentation was insufficient because she had not been on a live Senior Social Worker panel. She maintained that this requirement had never previously been communicated to her. She repeatedly sought documentary confirmation of the alleged requirement but states that this was never provided.

The Worker submitted that the process evolved from what was initially described as an informal discussion into what effectively became an interview and competency assessment process. She believed that she was being required to undertake a process intended for those who had not met the original eligibility criteria.

The Worker accepted that opportunities remained available to engage with a competency verification process but stated that her principal grievance concerned the absence of transparency, the lack of clear communication, the length of time involved and what she perceived as a lack of acknowledgement of the work she had already been performing. She described the process as frustrating, distressing, and disrespectful and submitted that it had adversely affected her wellbeing.

The Worker sought recognition that the process had been mishandled and that the concerns she had raised throughout should be acknowledged.

The Employer submitted that the Career Pathway Framework arose from a nationally agreed process involving the Employer, the Department of Health, and the relevant trade union. It maintained that the eligibility criteria were fixed and applied consistently throughout the process.

The Employer's position was that direct progression without further assessment was available only to those who had been on a live Senior Social Worker panel as of the relevant date. Individuals who had not satisfied that criterion were required to participate in a competency verification process.

The Employer accepted that communications issued during the administration of the process created confusion and acknowledged that an apology had previously been issued to the Worker. It maintained, however, that the confusion arose from an administrative misunderstanding rather than from any alteration of the agreed criteria.

At the hearing, the Employer accepted that the Worker had raised genuine concerns regarding communication and transparency. The Employer further advised that it had explored feasible options available within the framework and had engaged with recruitment personnel regarding the Worker's circumstances.

The Employer confirmed that an opportunity remained available for the Worker to participate in a local competency verification process involving her line management. It was stated that the purpose of that process would be to verify the Worker's experience and competencies and, if successful, facilitate her inclusion on the relevant list from which Senior Social Worker appointments could be made.

Importantly, the Employer indicated at the hearing that the process could be considered by reference to the Worker's original application and that documentation previously submitted by the Worker could be taken into account retrospectively from the date of her initial application.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I am satisfied that the central issue in this dispute is not whether the national Career Pathway Framework itself was valid. Rather, the dispute concerns how the process was communicated and administered in the particular circumstances of the Worker.

I accept the Employer's position that the Career Pathway Framework was nationally negotiated and that the local management team did not have authority to alter the substantive eligibility criteria. Equally, however, I am satisfied that the Worker experienced a process which lacked transparency and clarity. The evidence before me demonstrates that the Worker genuinely believed she had satisfied the criteria communicated to her. Correspondence received by her reinforced that belief. It is clear that subsequent communications created confusion and uncertainty. While the Employer ultimately acknowledged that confusion and apologised for it, this occurred only after a prolonged period during which the Worker repeatedly sought clarification.

I found the Worker's account regarding her frustration and disappointment to be genuine and credible. She clearly felt that her concerns were not being adequately addressed and that the process lacked accountability. I also accept that the length of time involved, and the changing explanations given to her understandably undermined her confidence in the process.

At the same time, I note the constructive engagement by the Employer at the hearing and, in particular, the willingness expressed by its representative to facilitate a practical means of progressing the matter. I consider that the proposal discussed during the hearing provides the most appropriate means of resolving the dispute and ensuring that the Worker is afforded a fair opportunity to have her experience and competencies assessed.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.