Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A public servant

A State Agency

Representatives

Fórsa

Darran Brennan, Solicitor of Mason Hayes & Curran LLP

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 - 00004959

19/08/2025

The Worker submits that her role is incorrectly graded. She has held a position which is graded at Clerical Officer (CO) grade within the public service. However, it is submitted by her union on her behalf that a substantial number of her duties are aligned more accurately with the grade of Executive Officer (EO). She is seeking that her role be graded at the grade of Executive Officer, and is seeking compensation for the period of eighteen (18) years during which she submits she has performed duties of a higher grade for lesser pay.

It is submitted that significant local engagement occurred, no resolution could be reached, and so, the matter has been referred to the WRC as a trade dispute under s. 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

The Employer denies the Worker’s claims. It emphasised that performance is not in issue, and that the Worker is an excellent employee. It submitted, however, that it is of the opinion that her work is appropriately graded; and further, submitted that there is no mechanism for upgrade available to it.

It submitted that job evaluation is only available in ‘exceptional circumstances’ with the sign off of four departments (two parent departments and two funding departments). It submitted that was explored with the parent department, subsequent to the filing of the Worker’s WRC complaint, but was flatly turned down – however, that documentation was not submitted as part of this case.

By way of background, the Worker was appointed to the role of Administrative Assistant in the Employer agency in 2002, which was aligned to the Clerical Officer grade.

In 2009, it is submitted that her role was expanded to include managing the Employer’s Research Office, assuming full responsibility for functions previously performed by staff at the Executive Officer grade (EO grade). It is submitted that this increase of responsibilities was never reflected in her grade or remuneration. Previous to this, it is submitted that the particular duties in question were carried out by a Technical Executive and subsequently an Executive Assistant (EO grade).

The Worker’s duties and responsibilities grew significantly, particularly in the areas of procurement, contract management, budget reporting and consulting with external auditors. Despite her expanded duties and her predecessors being paid according to the higher EO grade, the Employer continued to pay the Worker a CO salary.

It is submitted that this grade misalignment was raised by the Worker in 2009 as well as by her union, and on a number of occasions in recent years but to no avail.

In February 2025, the Worker’s union took up the matter again and sought a meeting with Employer management, which took place on 18th March. The union followed this up with a letter outlining its position in respect of the Worker’s incorrect grading (copy of correspondence submitted) and requested that she immediately be regraded to EO and provided with a backpay component to reflect the years spent performing EO duties.

It is submitted that Employer management responded on 9th April advising that they were ‘not in a position to grant this request’.

The union responded to this on 16th April, requesting that an independent job evaluation takes place.

It is submitted that Employer Management responded to this request three (3) months later on 22nd July and again refused to consider requesting a job evaluation from its parent departments.

As management would not agree to a job evaluation, the union referred the dispute to the WRC.

It is submitted that despite a number of requests, Employer management refused to engage with its parent departments to seek sanction for a grade review.

On 19th August, the union instructed the Worker to only conduct work that is appropriate to the CO grade and to cease all duties related to the EO grade. Management was also informed of this in writing.

Management responded on 22nd August, again refusing to consider a job evaluation.

In an attempt to resolve the dispute, the union met with management on 12th September. Unfortunately, no common ground was found and the union outlined its  position to management again in writing.

It is submitted that the Worker’s duties (up to 19th August when the union issued instruction to her) included the following:

·       The management of all research tender procurement and contractual processes in the Employer.

·       Producing monthly financial projections for the Employer management accounts. The budget for administration by the Research Office in 2024 is in excess of €600,000.

·       Drafting and publishing of tender information documents, uploading on e-tenders and other online platforms.

·       Organisation of evaluation sessions for tenders received with external evaluators, participation in the sessions as secretariate, writing up score sheets plus contract drafting and finalising with external organisations.

·       Handling project management from contract initiation to completion, ensuring compliance with deadlines, research milestones, and payments

·       Liaising with internal and external auditors, responding to queries on projects, and ensuring transparency in financial and research processes.

While it is accepted that job roles may change and expand over time, it is submitted that additional tasks must be appropriate to the relevant grade. However, the Worker’s role has expanded beyond the scope of the CO grade. It is submitted that this was acknowledged previously by her manager in her 2009 Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) which states: ‘[Name Redacted]’s role has changed significantly to now Research Coordinator. Objectives, deliverables and competencies have all changed’.

Over the eighteen (18) year period, the Worker’s PMDS has been formally reviewed and signed off by both the Director of [Title Redacted] and the Chief Executive Officer of the Employer. It is submitted that these PMDS documents show that management are in agreement that the Worker carried out the duties listed above. For instance, the 2024 PMDS lists out duties including managing ‘all research procurement and contractual processes’ and producing ‘monthly budgetary and project status reports’.

The 2024 PMDS also states that the Worker ‘dealt with queries from external auditors in relation to [Employer] research projects’, ‘co-ordinated the tender and evaluation process and ‘provided finance with monthly updates in regard to research financial projections for 2024, 2025 and 2026’. This document, as well as previous PMDS documents, was signed off by the Worker’s manager and the organisation's CEO.

The Worker’s 2023 PMDS stated that she ‘performed well in regard to her core RO duties — procurement/commissioning of new projects and ensuring adequate management of those projects in the field. Her monthly budgetary projections assist greatly with financial management of corporate budgets and processes’.

It is submitted that the fact that the duties outlined in her PMDS documents, which are the competencies of an EO, were signed off by senior managers shows that the additional duties taken on by the Worker was a core part of her role over the past eighteen (18) years and not an ad hoc arrangement.

Additionally, the Worker reports directly to a Principal Officer (PO), rather than to an EO or HEO, which it is submitted further reinforces the seniority of her work.

It is submitted that an analysis of the Worker’s responsibilities compared to the competency frameworks for CO and EO in the Irish Civil Service shows significant misalignment. The core responsibilities of a CO include administrative support, recordkeeping, and procedural work. However, the EO role requires project management, procurement oversight, financial responsibility, and decision-making—all of which the Worker has performed.

It is submitted that the following duties performed by the Worker and contained with the EO Competency framework but not within the CO Competency framework.

1.       The Worker follows procedures for tracking contract milestones and payments. [EO Competencies set out in Appendix 13]

2.       Demonstrated in the drafting of contracts, financial projections, and tender evaluations. [“Puts procedures in place to track quality and productivity" Page 6]

3.       Regularly engages with external contractors, auditors, and researchers to address contract and compliance issues. ["Delivers high quality standards with excellent attention to detail and accuracy" Page 6]

4.       Prepares monthly budget projections for the Employer’s significant research budget by tracking project research spends and milestones. ["Ensures high quality, professional customer service, resolving complex issues and queries and prioritising customer experience." Page 6]

5.       Prepares monthly budget projections for Employer’s significant research budget by tracking project research spends and milestones. ["Accurately evaluates numerical information and data" Page 6]

6.       Manages/co-ordinates the tender and contract process from beginning to end. [Identifies and solves complex problems, with the support of their team if needed" Page 6]

7.       The Worker’s role requires specialist knowledge of procurement processes and research contract management. ["Applies specialist skills in their area of expertise" Page 8]

8.       The Worker is a primary contact for external evaluators, research contractors, finance staff, and auditors. ["Listens to, consults and engages with relevant stakeholders" Page 10]

It is submitted that it is clear many of the duties expected of the Worker are more complex and specialised than those of a CO and carry significantly more responsibility. It is submitted that two members of staff who performed the same duties as the Worker were paid at the higher EO grade.

It is the union position that the Worker should be properly compensated for the level of work that she is doing and should be upgraded to the EO grade. It is submitted that the Employer should provide a backpay component to compensate the Worker for loss of pay since 2009.

The North-South Ministerial Council which comprises Ministers of Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government, was established under the Agreement 1998, to develop consultation, co-operation and action within the Ireland on matters of mutual interest and within the competence of the NSMC.

The Employer is one of the six North-South Implementation Bodies established under the Good Friday Agreement 1998 and given legislative effect in Ireland by the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1998. The Employer, while having clear operational remit, comes within the overall policy direction of the NSMC.

The British-Irish Agreement Act 1999, establishing the Employer outlines that “The Body will comply with the provisions of a Financial Memorandum drawn up for the Body by the Northern Ireland and Irish Departments paying grants to the Body and the Finance Departments. It will prescribe the detailed financial arrangements, including those in relation to accounts, the accounting year and currency, to be complied with by the Body.” The Finance Departments are defined as “the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland and the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform in Ireland (now Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation)” (together the ‘Finance Departments’).

70% of the funding is provided by the Department of Health in Ireland, and 30% is provided by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland (together the “Sponsor Departments”). The Employer’s functions are carried out by the Chief Executive Officer under the policy direction of NSMC.

It is submitted that the Employer is legally required to comply with the provisions of the Memorandum.

The Employer denies the Worker’s claim that some of the duties were previously carried out or remunerated at a higher level. It submits that the Worker’s role has always been carried out at CO level. It further submits that when the Worker has taken periods of leave during her 25 year employment (career breaks, maternity leave, carer’s leave), that the Employer advertised and successfully filled the Worker’s role on a fixed-term basis, on the same terms and conditions of employment, including the same duties and responsibilities as the Worker’s. It submits that the Employer successfully recruited for temporary cover for the Worker’s position during these periods of leave, with the relevant candidates all adequately fulfilling the role at CO level.

Background

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer as an Administration Assistant, at the Clerical Officer (‘CO’) grade, on 7 November 2001. This fixed-term contract of employment lasted a duration of six months, after which the Worker was offered a further six-month fixed term contract of employment. The Worker was offered a permanent  position on 4th September 2002, with her period of employment under this contract commencing on 9th August 2002. (Copy of the Worker’s permanent contract of employment submitted).

The Worker’s role is that of Administrative Assistant at the CO grade, reporting to the Director of [Title Redacted]. The job specification for the Worker’s role lists the Worker’s job purpose as being ‘to undertake administrative tasks and provide clerical support as required.’

The duties and responsibilities are set out fully in the job specification (Copy submitted) but it is instructive to list some of the key duties and responsibilities below:-

1.       Responsible for the management of general office administration duties within the directorate including post, maintenance equipment, filing, photocopying, faxing, scanning, sending mail and general clerical work.

2.       Data input – inputting data/text to IT systems.

3.       Maintenance of records and filing systems both manual and electronic to effectively manage all information within a section.

4.       Assist in locating and compiling data for papers/reports as required.

5.       Compile reports, papers, proposals, letters, memos or charts using Word, Excel, PowerPoint as required.

6.       Assist line manager in carrying out duties of Employer [Name Redacted] as required

In 2008, the Worker’s duties were slightly amended to include assisting with certain administrative tasks on research projects that the Employer undertakes. In this regard, her role was amended to focus on administrative support for the wider science directorate.

The Employer understands the crux of the Worker’s argument to be that she believes that certain of her duties/responsibilities are more akin to the responsibilities/duties of an Executive Officer (EO), rather than that of a CO. In effect, she believes she is performing duties of a higher grade than that for which she is being paid.

In this regard, the Worker first approached the Employer in relation to this issue through her union representative in July of 2024, at which time a meeting was sought to discuss the Worker’s role and responsibilities. The Employer met with the Worker and her union representative on 6th August 2024. At this meeting, the current grading of the Worker’s role was discussed, and the Employer explained that it understood that the current grading of the role was correct. Further, the Employer informed the Worker and her representative that it was not in a position to seek a regrading of the role.

The matter lay dormant for some months until February 2025, in which a separate union representative made contact with the Employer on the Worker’s behalf. Stemming from this correspondence, the Employer met with the Worker and her representative on several occasions in an effort to resolve matters, including on 18th March 2025, 9th April 2025 and 12th September 2025. There was also extensive correspondence commencing on 17th February 2025, and culminating on 23rd September 2025. (Copies of the correspondences submitted).

It is submitted that as is evidenced from letters sent by the Worker’s representative, dated 19th August 2025 and 23rd September 2025, the Worker is currently refusing to undertake certain tasks in connection with her role, as she believes these duties are more appropriately categorised as EO-grade rather than those of a CO.

The Employer’s position is that the Worker is required to provide administrative and clerical support in connection with the above matters, and that she is inappropriately refusing to carry out tasks which properly fall within the scope of the CO role; and that such refusal constitutes a breach of her employment contract.

In respect of the matters with regard to which the Worker has withdrawn her services, a (truncated) summary of the Employer’s responses are as follows:-

(A)    Compiling monthly financial projections for [Name Redacted] Employer management accounts/Producing monthly financial projections for [Name Redacted] management accounts. The budget for administration by the Research Office in 2024 is in excess of €600,000.

The Employer contends that there are no financial projections being prepared by the Worker; and further contends that the Worker’s role involves data entry and record keeping, in line with her job description and duties.

(B)    Calculating final payments due to researcher, based on final reports and cost statements submitted by research contractors, and completing end of project assessment forms, which outlines all financial aspects of the project.

It is submitted that this is a data entry task in line with the Worker’s duties, namely ‘Data input – inputting data/text to IT systems’ and ‘Assist in locating and compiling data for paper/reports as required.’

(C)    Liaising with internal and external auditors, responding to queries from auditors, and ensuring transparency in financial and research processes/Liaising with internal and external auditors, responding to queries on projects, and ensuring transparency in financial and research processes.

The Employer contends that the Worker is not expected to respond to queries from internal or external auditors, but rather is responsible for maintaining research records and documents.

It is submitted that this is a record keeping task in line with the Worker’s duties, namely ‘Maintenance of records and filing systems both manual and electronic to effectively manage all information within a section’ and ‘Assist in locating and compiling data for papers/reports as required.’

(D)   Coordinating the preparation of tender information documents/the management of all research tender procurement/Drafting tender information documents.

It is submitted that the Worker is not required to read or sign off on the Tender Information Documents (TID) – that is done by the [relevant] Chief Specialist; and that her role is to co-ordinate the completion of the documents, the contents of which remain the responsibility of the [relevant] Chief Specialist.

It is submitted that the Worker does not have sign off responsibility on the TID – that falls within the purview of the [relevant] Director.

The Employer contends that this is a data input and compilation task in line with the Worker’s duties, namely to ‘Assist in locating and compiling data for papers/reports as required’ and ‘Compile reports, papers, proposals, letters, memos or charts using Word, Excel, PowerPoint as required.’

(E)    Managing the tender process and supporting the uploading of documents on e-tenders and other online platforms/publishing tender information documents and uploading on e-tenders and other online platforms.

The Employer submits that an external procurement company has been engaged by it to assist with e-tenders.

It submits that the Worker’s responsibilities include completing a tender form for the external procurement company and providing it with the documentation which has to be uploaded online for e-tender.

It submits that the Worker’s role is to act as a go-between, where necessary, passing any queries from the external procurement company on to the [relevant] Director of Chief Specialist, as appropriate.

The Employer contends that these are data input, record management and general clerical tasks in line with the Worker’s duties, namely ‘Data input – inputting data/text to IT systems’, ‘Assist in locating and compiling data for papers/reports as required’, ‘maintenance of records and filing systems both manual and electronic to effectively manage all information within a section’ and ‘responsible for the management of general office administration  duties within the directorate including post, maintenance equipment, filing, photocopying, faxing, scanning, sending mail and general clerical work.’

(F)     Writing up technical score sheets following external evaluation of tenders, in order to ensure compliance with published criteria and ensure transparency in public procurement/Organisation of evaluation sessions for tenders received with external evaluators, participation in the sessions as secretariate, writing up score sheets.

It submits that the tenders are evaluated by external experts selected by the Chief Specialist. It submits that the Worker is responsible for making arrangements for the evaluation meeting to be held either remotely or in person, as appropriate, but she is not responsible for scoring or evaluating tenders. Tenders are evaluated by the external experts selected by the Chief Specialist. The Worker is responsible for taking appropriate notes of the meeting.

The Worker further circulates the report to the external evaluators for their final comments

The Employer contends that this is a general clerical and compilation task in line with the Worker’s duties, namely ‘Responsible for the management of general office administration duties within the directorate including post, maintenance equipment, filing, photocopying, faxing, scanning, sending mail and general clerical work’ and ‘Compile reports, papers, proposals, letters, memos or charts using Word, Excel PowerPoint as required.’

(G)   Providing technical feedback to unsuccessful tender bids

The Worker is responsible for preparing a letter to unsuccessful tenderers, which is based on a standard template form.

It submits that the substance of the feedback is from the external evaluators. The Worker is responsible for the collation of the information but not for the substantive content itself.

Where a query is raised, the Employer submits that the Worker passes the query to the [relevant] Director and/or Chief Specialist for their comments, and the Worker will then convey their response to the unsuccessful tenderer.

The Employer contends that there are general clerical and compilation tasks in line with the Worker’s duties, namely ‘Responsible for the management of general office administration duties within the directorate including post, maintenance equipment, filing, photocopying, faxing, scanning, sending mail and general clerical work’ and ‘Compile reports, papers, proposals, letters, memos or charts using Word, Excel, PowerPoint as required.’

(H)   Coordinating and drafting of research contracts/the management of all contractual processes in [Name Redacted] Employer/contract drafting and finalising with external organisations.

A standard template research contract is used by the Employer, which has been drafted with input from the Employer’s legal advisors. This template forms the base for all research contracts entered into by the Employer, and contains certain standard clauses as appropriate.’

The Employer submits that the Worker is responsible for inserting basic variable items into this template, such as the name of the project, the name and details of the tenderer, the relevant dates and amounts associated with the contract.  The Worker copies information taken from the TID and the successful tender into the template research contract.

The Worker does not deviate from the template.

The Employer contends that this does not amount to the ‘drafting of research contracts’ but that this is a data input and compilation task in line with the Worker’s duties, namely to ‘Compile reports, papers, proposals, letters, memos or charts using Word, Excel, PowerPoint as required.’

(I)      Leading on ensuring compliance with contract deadlines, research milestones and payments/Handling project management

Research projects are led and managed by the Chief Specialist, who is responsible for writing the TID and for adherence to timelines/deadlines.  The Worker assists the Chief Specialist with the administration of the relevant documentation and inputs basic variable information on template forms, but all decision-making relating to adherence to the schedule (deadlines, research milestones or payments) falls to the Chief Specialist.

The [relevant] Director is responsible for approving payments, the Worker is then instructed to prepare a standard payment request, and then final approval is made by the same Director before payment is processed.

The Employer contends that this is an ad hoc assistance task in line with the Worker’s duty to ‘assist line manager in carrying out duties of [Name Redacted] as required.’,

It is submitted that the responsibilities of the Worker come within her job description (Copy submitted), and that the duties and responsibilities assigned are appropriate for an individual employed at CO level.

The Employer submits that it has engaged extensively with the Worker, at local level, that it does not accept that she is being asked to perform duties above her grade level, and moreover submits that it is simply not within the Employer’s power to regrade the Worker’s role, as requested.

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

The Worker’s position is that she has been performing duties of a higher grade without appropriate remuneration since 2009. The Employer denies the Worker’s claims, and further submits that there is no mechanism for job evaluation or re-grading; and has set out the particular structures under which the organisation was set up and is funded, in that regard.

I am guided by the Labour Court’s approach in relation to disputes referred under the Industrial Relations Acts, which is to issue recommendations that are ‘realistically capable of being voluntarily accepted.’

I have had particular regard to the Labour Court’s approach in LCR27766, Tusla Child and Family Agency V. A Worker, with respect to the issue of upgrade sought by an individual worker, in which it sets out, upholding the recommendation made at first instance: ‘It is evident from the Employer’s submission to the Court that the Worker is a highly regarded and dedicated member of her team. Her belief that she is performing duties proper to a higher grade that that in which she is employed is perfectly understandable in circumstances where two team members (in a relatively small, specialised team) who had been employed at that higher grade have been transferred elsewhere and a third is absent on long-term sick leave and there has been no decrease in the demands on the service.

However, the Court nevertheless finds that the Worker’s claim for regrading is not well-founded. The issue of regrading has collective implications and cannot, therefore, be considered by the Court in the context of an appeal in a single-worker dispute.’ In that case, the Court also found that claim to be ‘cost-increasing and prohibited by Building Momentum.’

Given this approach by the Court, I am not in a position to recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.

I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Upgrade;