Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Waterworks/Sewerage Caretaker

A Local Authority

Representatives

Michael Kiely SIPTU

S Hearns LGMA

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00008013-001

06/11/2016

The Complainant is employed as a Waterworks’ Caretaker Grade 5 by the Respondent Local Authority. From 2008 to 2010 he was acting in this position. In 2010 he was permanently appointed to his position following a recruitment competition. He was asked to sign a new contract. At approximately the same time period other colleagues were appointed to other higher grade Caretaker positions without signing a new contract.

In 2012 details of the   Complainant’s total earnings with the Authority became widely know among his colleagues as a result of correspondence from a Manager. The figures incorporated his earnings from the retained Fire Service (a completely separate matter) as well as his waterworks duties. It was completely inappropriate for this personal information to be made public among his colleagues.

In 2013 the Complainant was successful in a Competition for a General Services Supervisors (GSS) position. However it proved impossible to agree suitable terms (principally difficulties over transport and overtime levels) and the Complainant did not take the position.

It was his strong contention that the terms being offered to him were substantially inferior to terms enjoyed by other staff in similar positions.

The Respondent opened their position by clearly stating that Authority wide negotiations, under the auspice of the Workplace Relations Commission Conciliation services, were underway regarding the Waterworks Caretaker position through out the Authority.   The Complainant was in effecting taking a parallel approach, a “solo run”, outside of the main talks. Accordingly the Authority could not contemplate any arrangement as a result of the claim today as such would undermine the main negotiations.

As regards the 2010 Contract, this was perfectly normal – the Complainant had been in the position on an acting basis and when appointed on a permanent basis a new Contract was the normal situation.

As a result of an Industrial relations agreement at around the same time a number of colleagues had been upgraded to higher level positions without new Contracts being issued. There was nothing unusual in this. The Complainant had suffered absolutely no detriment in his terms and conditions from the new Contract.

As regards the making public of the Complainant’s earnings in 2012 (based on total earnings from the Fire Service and the Waterworks Schemes) this was probably not handled very well but had no real detriment to the Complainant.

The GSS Competition in 2013 was as stated. The terms for the position in 2013 were known in advance and could not be individually negotiated with the Complainant. However it was noted by the Authority that two senior staff (the Complainant and one other had declined to accept the position).

However in Summary, the Authority’s position was that talks were underway with SIPTU under the auspices of the WRC and a “solo run” by the Complainant was inappropriate and had to be rejected.

On hearing the evidence it was clear that Authority wide talks were underway regarding the entire Waterworks situation. It was clear that the question of high overtime earnings levels were a matter of particular concern to the Respondent.   However there was nothing to indicate that the Complainant was in any way an exception to the process such as to justify a “solo run”.

The Permanent appointment with a new Contract, following a number of years Acting, was a normal administrative process.

It was clear that the becoming available, to a wider group of staff, details of the Complainant’s total earnings in 2012 was inappropriate. It did not help local relationships.

The GSS situation is a Human Resource issue for the Authority and as such has to be reflected upon by the Authority.

Accordingly having considered all the evidence, both Oral and Written provided, I make the following Recommendations.

1. The Authority wide talks, under the auspices of the WRC, continue speedily and hopefully reach a conclusion that will address the complaints of the Complainant in this case.
2. The question and reasons for the filling or non filling, from suitable internal candidates, of the promotional GSS position to be considered by the Authority as a matter of HR concern.
3. The specific grievance of the Complainant in relation to the wider circulation of his total earnings in 2012 is a situation which appeared to have happened inadvertently.
4. However his upset is understandable in relation to personal data. In recognition of this breach I recommend that a small lump sum of € 250 be awarded to the Complainant as compensation for the distress caused here.

It is not an award for any loss of earnings and is a Compensation award for redress of a personal issue. This detail to be considered in any discussion with the Revenue as to the taxable status of this award.

Dispute