Case Number: ADJ-00000063. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Docket NumberADJ-00000063
Date01 March 2016
PartiesAn Employee -v- An Employer
Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and section of the Industrial Relations Act, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

This claim refers to the alleged failure of the employer to implement equally it’s proposal made in 2007 to apply an independent evaluation of the appropriate grade for HR Managers in the Respondent’s PCCCS (community service), a proposal which was accepted by IMPACT Trade Union. The Claim specifically refers to the subsequent alleged inconsistencies applied in relation to the incremental progression of eight managers at Grade VIII salary. The Claimant who is one of three of the eight managers who have complained they have been unfairly treated.

As the Claimant is one of three managers with an identical claim, the three Claimants and the Respondent agreed that the claim could be heard and responded to in unison. Notwithstanding, and in accordance with the fact that the claims are made separately, a separate report is issued for each Claimant.

The Claimant is employed as HR manager within the North Eastern Region of the Respondent. The Claimant contends that a proposal was made in 2006 by the then National HR Director that the Claimant would be appointed as a Grade VIII with an understanding that an evaluation of the appropriate grade for the job would be completed, and where the National HR Director at that time affirmed that the appropriate grade for the role was Grade VIII. In July 2007 the Claimant was appointed to Grade VIII along with eight other managers. However incremental progression was not applied to him since his appointment, whereas it was applied to five of the other managers appointed. The Claimant argued that this decision amounts to a substantial financial loss to him (circa €65,656).

The Claimant argued that over the years he attempted to address the issue with the Respondent and on 23 September 2015 he received a formal response which rejected his claim. As this was the first formal response from the Respondent the Claimant progressed the claim to the WRC at that stage.

The Claimant also argued that a review of the organisation’s IT personnel record system would show that he was de facto appointed to a Grade VIII position from 2007. This argument is based on the fact that the IT system shows a specific appointment number against his position, and that number had to be created as there was no acting up position to fill, and therefore he was promoted to a new appointment. In effect the Claimant relies on this record as demonstrating that a new substantive Grade VIII position was created for him. The Claimant further argued the appointment would have been recorded differently if he was only in an acting role. The Claimant contended that the other five HR managers were not only treated as being appointed to a substantive Grade VIII position, but they were also paid incremental payments from their appointment in July 2007. This he believes further demonstrates that it was not an acting role or an acting allowance would have been applied in accordance with Circular letter 10/71 (and a subsequent acting up policy issued in January 2010).

The Claimant also argued that a letter from the National Director of HR on 10 July 2006 stated that "one national approach is required". Therefore he contended that all...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT