Case Number: ADJ-00012687. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00012687
• Hearing Date: 24 April 2018
• Date: 01 May 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A civil servant v A Government Department
• Respondent: A Government Department

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012687

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A civil servant	A Government Department

Representatives Mr. P. Mullan, Fόrvsa Mr. Peter Leonard BL instructed by CSSO.

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00016875-001	20/11/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/04/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant has been a civil servant since June 2003. He was promoted to his present level, EO, in August 2016. In 2010, due to performance issues the payment of an increment was stopped for a period of one year. Since that time the Complainants performance ratings have been “meetsexpectations” and in some areas “excels in most areas”. The Complainant believes this justifies the restoration of increments but to date this has not happened. When promoted the Complainant was placed on the first point of the EO salary scale, had his increments been restored he would have been placed on a higher point of the EO salary scale. The Complainant is now seeking the full restoration of increments with effect from 2011 /2012 and the amendment of the subsequent starting point on the EO pay scale.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

At the time of promotion in August 2016 the Complainant raised the issue of increments and starting point on the Executive Officer (EO) salary scale. The Complainant was promoted in August 2016. In 2010 the Complainant’s increments were stopped for one year as a step in the Civil Service Disciplinary Procedure, this was due to some performance difficulties i.e. his timekeeping was poor and he had many late arrivals to work. Since this time his performance has been regarded as “meets expectations” and “excels in most areas”. The Complainant feels this justifies the restoration of increments. This has not happened. The Complainant maintains that he has lost six years of salary increases and resulting income. When promoted the Complainant was placed on the first point of the Executive Officer (EO) Scale, a point far lower than the one he would have been placed on had he received the increments he feels were due to him. When the Complainant queried this situation with PeoplePoint he was informed that they were following instruction issued by HR. No further explanation or rationale were offered to the Complainant. The last correspondence received from HR was in 2011 advising him that increments were being withheld for a period of one year and that the situation would be reviewed at the end of this period. That was 6 years ago, and the Complainant maintains that not only have his increments not been restored but no review has taken place. In recent weeks, the Complainant has met with the Personnel Officer who offered the restoration of increments for 2016 and 2017, this offer was rejected by the Complainant. The Complainant has received no contact from HR either to inform him of a disciplinary issue or a review in line with the Civil Service Disciplinary Code. The Complainant is now seeking the restoration of increments with effect from 2011/2012 and the subsequent starting point on the Executive Officer Scale.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There is no disagreement in the version of events offered by both the Complainant and the Respondent in the events leading to the disciplinary action i.e. the withholding of the increment. Post 2011 The Complainant’s late attendance record continued to be an issue over the years from 2012 to 2016. The following table sets out the Complainant’s late infringements for the years 2011 to 2017 – 2011 – 49 2012 – 80 2013 – 79 2014 – 77 2015 – 56 2016 – 33 2017 – 5 2018 - 7 * *As of 16th April 2018, It should be noted that from end August 2016 to end August 2017 the Complainant was on his 1 year probation for substantive appointment to the EO grade. HR wrote to him as part of general flexitime monitoring to bring his attention to above average late infringements on several occasions between September 2013 and January 2018 and his line manager had spoken to him in November 2014 about his late attendance. Accordingly, as he continued to have an unacceptable late attendance record the Complainant was not awarded any further increments on the Clerical Officer scale. However, in terms of its general assessment of the Complainant’s role, management acknowledged that he was successfully performing his duties in other areas and accordingly when it came to his annual PMDS assessments during this period the Complainant never received an unsatisfactory classification, or a classification below level 3. It was also acknowledged that during this time the complainant served directly in the Minister’s Office or in the offices of Ministers for State. In these offices, it is acknowledged that he would remain working late on certain evenings.

...