LCR21516

The within dispute encompasses complaints in respect of four individual workers employed by the same local authority.

Worker 1 has been employed as Social Worker by the Respondent since 1999. There is a long history to his grievance which dates back to the period immediately after his appointment. He submits that his role and responsibilities broadened from that time such that he is now effectively, and for all intents and purposes, performing a range of duties and responsibilities equivalent to that of a Senior Social Worker. His Trade Union has made a number of representations on his behalf over the years seeking to have his position regraded having regard to the considerable increase in his workload and the additional responsibilities that he has been asked to assume. The Union submits that approximately 13 Local Authorities employ Senior Social Workers and this Worker’s workload is comparable to those persons employed at that grade elsewhere.

The Respondent submits that it is one of the smallest Local Authorities in the country with a full-time equivalent headcount of no more than 200. It submits that the Union has agreed in principle that the decision on the need for a Senior Social Worker is not a national level decision but is a matter for each individual local authority Manager. It has already deployed considerable resources to the department in which this Worker is deployed and it does not accept that there is a business case that supports the Worker’s request to have his position upgraded to that of Senior Social Worker. It also submits that the Worker’s position is correctly graded. Finally, the Local Authority submits that the regrading claim is precluded under the Public Services Agreement and is cost-increasing.

Worker 2 was appointed to the position of Sports Partnership Administrator (Grade 4) in February 2007 following a public advertisement and subsequent competition. Prior to taking up this post on a fixed-term basis, the Worker held (and continues to hold) a substantive Grade 3 post with the Respondent. The Respondent has indicated that it intends to make this a permanent position subject to confined competition, in line with collectively agreed arrangements with unions for the Local Authority sector.

The Union submits that the Worker has been effectively acting up in this position for some 10 years and that, therefore, she should be designated into it. In support of this view, the Union submits that had the Worker been recruited on temporary basis from outside the Local Authority she would have acquired a contract of indefinite duration by operation of law pursuant to the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term) Work Act 2003 and that there is no justification for treating her less favourably on the basis only of her status as a public servant than an external person would have been treated.

The Respondent submits that Appendix 6 of the Haddington Road Agreement deals with the issue of the regularisation of long-term actors in the Local Authority Sector in the context of Workforce Planning. It further submits that the established practice in the sector is that permanent appointments are filled through competition and no other mechanism applies for promotion or appointment.

Worker 3 is currently employed (pursuant to a series of temporary contracts) as an Executive Scientist. He was appointed to this position in March 2009 following a competition. He holds a substantive post as an Executive Technician. This Worker also submits that he should be permanently designated in the post without the need for a further competition.

The Respondent submits that agreement has been reached at national level between the Trade Unions, Irish Water and the Department of Community, Environment and Local Government to fill a significant number of temporary posts on a permanent basis through confined competition and this process is to be overseen by a facilitator. This Worker’s temporary post is subject to this process.

Worker 4 was employed by the Respondent as County Librarian on a series of fixed-term contracts for approximately 3.5 years between September 2011 and April 2015. At that time she held a substantive post in a neighbouring Local Authority Area from which she was seconded to the Respondent. The Union submits that this Worker should be confirmed in the County Librarian position on a permanent basis in circumstances where the position remains to be filled.

The Respondent submits the filling of the vacancy of County Librarian on a permanent basis is being addressed currently at national level with IMPACT in the context of a general reform of the library service nationwide and that is not, therefore, appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions.

Recommendation

Worker 1: The Court is aware of the national level discussions that are underway in relation to establishing a mechanism to assess claims of the nature advance on behalf of this Worker. The Court is of the view that such a mechanism would provide an appropriate forum for consideration of the merits of this claim. If the claim remains unresolved by this means, it can be referred back to the Court through normal industrial relations mechanisms.

Workers 2 and 3: The posts currently held on a temporary basis by these Workers are to be filled by means of a confined competition. This is in accordance with sectoral agreements and normal practice and the Court recommends this process should proceed accordingly.

Worker 4: There are national level discussions underway in relation to a potential general reform of the library service nationwide. The issue of the appointment of County Librarians is due to be dealt with in the context of these negotiations.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
LS______________________
7 July 2017Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.