The Case

The complaint was lodged by a group of employees from the then Ministry for Education and Employment (MEDE), now the Ministry for Education, Sport, Youth, Research, and Innovation (MEYR). The complainants alleged an injustice concerning their salary, claiming an anomaly existed between their compensation and that of employees in the same position in the Ministry for Digital, Maritime, and Services Economy (MCDMS). They contended that while their salary started from the minimum of Scale 8 and progressed to the maximum, employees in the same position at MCDMS were given the maximum of Scale 8 from the beginning of their employment.

The Investigation

The investigation involved examining the calls for applications issued by both MEDE and MCDMS. The MEDE calls, dated 26th August 2015 and 28th April 2016, specified a salary starting from the minimum of Scale 8 with annual increments. Conversely, the MCDMS call, dated 31st May 2016, stated the salary was pegged to the maximum point of Scale 8 from the start. Despite the complainants’ request for clarification to MEDE and the Grievances Board, they received no satisfactory response. The People & Standards Division (P&SD) justified the salary difference by stating the duties at MCDMS were more onerous than those at MEDE.

Facts and Findings

Call Specifications: MEDE’s calls indicated a starting salary at the minimum of Scale 8, whereas MCDMS’s call offered the maximum salary of Scale 8.

Duties Analysis: P&SD claimed that the duties at MCDMS included additional responsibilities such as advising on improvements and acting as Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officers, which were deemed more onerous than those at MEDE.

Complainants’ Duties: The complainants argued that their duties at MEDE were extensive and included advisory roles and report preparation, which were not listed in the original job call.

Response to Grievances: P&SD’s responses to the complainants lacked detail and clarity, failing to explain why their requests and appeals were not upheld.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Ombudsman concluded that the P&SD had not acted unfairly in its decision, as the duties at MCDMS were legitimately deemed more onerous. However, the investigation highlighted several administrative shortcomings:

Directive 9 Compliance: The Ministry for Education should ensure that the proper procedures, including the Chairperson’s responsibility for reports, are followed.

Clear Communication: To avoid confusion, P&SD should clearly inform complainants whether the Grievances Board or P&SD will handle their case.

Detailed Explanations: P&SD should provide clear, detailed explanations to complainants about why their requests or appeals were not accepted.

Outcome

The recommendations were accepted and implemented by the P&SD. This included revising their communication procedures to provide more clarity and detail to complainants about the handling and outcomes of their cases.

Read the case in detail