Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Public 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 - 00003830

18/02/2025

The dispute concerns the Worker’s application to be regraded to the higher Grade 7 salary. The Worker became a permanent employee of the Employer in 2016. He submitted that almost from the outset he carried out functions and responsibilities beyond what his grade would require. Whilst disputing aspects of the claim, the Employer agreed the Worker had greatly contributed to the development of his department to the benefit of its systems and clients.

The Worker also disputed that he was furnished with a proper statement of his terms of employment within two months as required by the Terms of Employment (Information Act) [1994-2020] – which was denied by the Employer.

The Worker stated that his line Managers initially recommended him/his position for upgrading in 2018 and continued to do so thereafter. The Worker provided information in relation to these efforts. The Worker stated that despite their recommendation he was not upgraded. The Worker acknowledged, however, that he had received what he called “partial recognition” in 2023 when he was placed on a Grade A band which was given effect from 1/1/2021.

The Worker stated that he sought a job evaluation in August 2024 but that he did not receive a reply until approximately a year later in August 2025. He stated that he completed and forwarded a job evaluation form to the Employer in August 2025. The Worker outlined this was a desk top evaluation, that he was not interviewed as part of the process nor was there any engagement with him about his duties and responsibilities. The Worker stated that  by the time of the first WRC adjudication hearing on 12/1/2026 he had not received any response to the job evaluation.

A witness on behalf of the Worker – a former line Manager – outlined the role of the Worker and the contribution he had made to developments within the system. The witness stated that a Grade 7 had been approved in other regions for the same/similar role. He also stated that a job evaluation based on an administrative/clerical role was inappropriate given the nature of the Worker’s duties.

It is the position of the Worker that he has diligently and competently carried out his duties and responsibilities, that he has worked well beyond his grade and that he very much appreciates the support and recognition he has received throughout from his line Managers in their endeavours to have his position upgraded. The Worker stated that he was seeking to be regraded to Grade 7 without delay and that the corollary increased salary be backdated to “2016, and no later than 2017”.

The Worker stated that he became a permanent employee of the Employer on 17/2/2016 but that he was not provided with a contract of employment until 3/6/2016. The Worker stated that the contract did not contain a job description nor were his terms clearly set out.  He stated he was seeking compensation for the failure to provide him with a correct statement of his terms and conditions within two months of his permanent appointment in 2016 and following his placing on the Grade A band – in accordance with the Terms of Employment (Information Act) [1994-2020].

The Employer stated that following its conducting a national job evaluation process the Worker’s position was upgraded to a Grade A band higher scale in 2023 which was backdated to 1/1/2021. The Employer referred to its responses to previous requests from the Worker/on his behalf, for upgrading including supportive responses in 2022 which referred to the requirement to hold a competition and the development of a strategic approach to progress the service.

The Employer stated that in response to a further request from the Worker in 2024, it initiated a “once-off”  job evaluation process based on a clerical/admin model of evaluation as there was no established evaluation mechanism for the Worker’s role. The Employer stated that the Worker completed the job evaluation form and this was forwarded to its evaluation committee in August 2025. The Employer stated that its job evaluation process is long established and that it comprises a representative of management and the relevant trade union.

The Employer stated that it received the outcome of the Worker’s job evaluation on 13/10/2025 which recommended that the Worker be regraded to Grade 5. The Employer acknowledged and apologised to the Worker that he was not notified of this outcome until during the WRC adjudication hearing on 12/1/2026. The Employer also confirmed there was a right of internal appeal of the outcome.

The Employer outlined the implications of a regrading to Grade 5 including being appointed to the grade without competition, higher salary, increased annual leave, the opportunity in the future to compete for Grades 6 or 7 positions and/or seek a further job evaluation. The Employer wrote to the Worker on 23/4/2026 advising that it was “in a position to appoint you to Grade V terms and conditions from 18th February 2025 which is the date your claim was submitted to the WRC”.

It is the position of the Employer that it acknowledges the very good work and contribution of the Worker but that it is not in a position to approve a regrade other than the Grade 5 recommended by its evaluation committee on 13/10/2025.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions, documents and correspondence presented to me by the parties. I am satisfied there is broad agreement between the Worker and the Employer on the sequence of developments in relation to the regrading issue. Having considered all matters carefully I have reached the following conclusions:

-          I note that the outcome of the Worker’s job evaluation on 13/10/2025 stated “that the application…..has now been objectively evaluated and Quality Assured….we accommodated the use of the Job Evaluation scoring tool, outside the scheme…..The outcome was that the post was evaluated at a Grade V…..”.I further note that Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 precludes my  consideration of the terms and conditions of a body of workers. Given that the Employer has an established job evaluation process applicable to all workers, I accept it’s submission that as a result, it is not in a position to recommend a regrading of the Worker other than to Grade 5. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is not within my capacity or jurisdiction to recommend otherwise;

-          That the Worker’s 2025 evaluation process lacked transparency and suitability as it was primarily designed for administrative/clerical roles;

-          I note the Worker’s Contract of Employment contained a commencement date of 1/2/2016 and that it was signed by the Worker on 17/2/16 although he maintained he was not furnished with the contract until 3/6/2016. The Terms of Employment (Information) Act [1994-2022] then provided that an employer shall, within two months, after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the particulars of his/her employment. The Worker’s Contract stated that “The main duties of your position are set out in the attached job description the details of such will be outlined to you by your supervisor. In addition to your normal duties you may be required to undertake other duties appropriate to your position as may be assigned to you….”.

The Worker has not provided any information that he raised a complaint about these matters in 2016 or that he initiated any complaint to the WRC pursuant to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act [1994-2022]. In all the circumstances, I find the Worker has not provided any information to the effect that a dispute about this matter is currently in being or is ongoing or that he has been in dispute about this matter at any stage since  2016.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. In light of my conclusions I make the following recommendations:

1.       That having regard to the fact the Worker is currently on the top of the Grade A band salary scale, that should he accept the Grade 5 offer, I recommend he be moved across to the third point of the Grade 5 scale with effect from 18/2/2025 and that the consequential arrears owing be calculated and paid in a timely manner;

2.       That the Employer develop a job evaluation process appropriate to the job carried out by the Worker which would facilitate a fair and transparent assessment of the duties and responsibilities of the job and a right of appeal;

3.       I make no recommendation in relation to the issues raised under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act [1994-2022].

Application for Re-Grading; Contract of Employment