Claimant

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Craftsperson

A County Council

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-00011329-001

15/05/2017

The Claimant submitted a claim to the WRC on May 5th2017 that he was not appropriately paid for duties he undertook on behalf of the Employer.

The Claimant provided details of 7 different posts and their replacements since 2008 to support his case.

The Claimant stated that three machinery employees since 2008 and none had been replaced.

The Claimant stated he started as Workshop Foreman in 2009.

He stated several recommendations and reports suggested the above positions be replaced but they have not to-date.

In 2014 the HSA found the Yard to be understaffed.

The Claimant stated he had been carrying out the high demands of the Workshop Foreman role without the assistance and guidance of the expertise of the that had retired all around the same time. This involved, implementing new HSA requirements, Health and Safety duties, Training and Development requirements, Plant daily checks, Inspections, CVRTs recording to comply with RSA guidelines and to be available for audit and plant numbers have doubled since 2008.

The Claimant stated he had seven meetings on his claim over two years.

Historically the Machinery Yard had a large number of staff (c.80) which included, drivers, mechanics, storemen and management. May of the functions have now ceased or have been cut back such as;

Refuse Collections

Hedge Cutting

Grass cutting

Road Maintenance for all class of roads within the county

The Reporting Structure in the Machinery Department prior to the Claimant being appointed as Foreman, on the 9th September 2010, was as follows;

Technical Services Supervisor

Foreman

Assistant Foreman

As functions and overall staff numbers within the Machinery Department reduced, the requirement to maintain the historical supervisory structure was no longer present.

The Claimant has contended at meetings with this local authority that in

addition to the position of Foreman he also carried out the duties of Technical Services Supervisor.

The Technical Services Supervisor, (T.S.S), was an Authorised Officer over Department of Environment Inspection providers and services for the Department of Transport. While the post holder would normally have been directly responsible for the test centres in the City and County, he was also part of a National Committee which worked to legislate and later to prepare for the arrival of the Road Safety Authority.  

The above duties were allocated to another T.S.S. outside the county following the T.S.S. retirement and did not form part of The Claimant’s duties on his appointment as Foreman. Duties in relation to budgeting and finance previously handled by the T.S.S. were dealt with by the Engineer appointed to the machinery depot subsequent to the retirement of the T.S.S.

It is acknowledged that the Claimant would have been responsible for activities relating to the Garage and Fleet. However, these duties were conducted in a considerably reduced workforce environment referenced above.

The Claimant was appointed to the position of Foreman in 2010 and continues to hold that position. The Claimant was not appointed to “Act” up in the intervening period between his appointment of Foreman and the appointment of Fleet Manager, again see above.   In 2015, a regularisation process was undertaken in respect of staff that had held “acting” positions on a long term basis. The posts to be regularised were agreed in advance with all unions, including S.I.P.T.U. There is no record of representations being made on the Claimant’s behalf by either himself or his union at that time.

Two Councils amalgamated to form a single authority in June 2014. The Machinery yard oversees fleet management both in the City and County.   The terms of SI 348 of 2013 requires that the Employer have a Fleet Management System in place. It was essential that this authority should recruit a Fleet manager with suitable qualifications and competency to meet the requirements of SI 348. In light of these changed circumstances, the supervisory structure of the Machinery yard has been strengthened with the following appointments;

Fleet Manager:                                                 Appointed: 29th August, 2016

Assistant Fleet Manager:                              Appointed: 15th May, 2017

It is only since the appointment of these staff that the Claimant has formally made representations to the Human Resource Department in respect of his position.

The Claimant did not compete for either of the above positions. The Claimant with his union representative held a number of meetings with Human Resources in this regard, particularly in relation to the Assistant Fleet Manager position and was given every encouragement to apply for the same. A number of avenues were explored with a view to assisting the Claimant in this regard.   However, the Claimant declined to apply for same. While the basic wage of the Assistant Fleet Manager would have been higher than his existing wage, the Claimant would no longer have the benefit of the various allowances and considerable overtime which he is currently earning.

The Claimant earnings for the period 2009 to present are substantial when the payment of overtime and allowances are reviewed. It cannot be argued that The Claimant has suffered any financial loss during the period 2009/2010 to 2016 when the Fleet Manager was appointed.   His earnings, and in particular those relating to overtime were considerable and in some instances almost matched his basic pay.

The Employer does not accept the Claimant’s claim that he has not been appropriately paid/compensated for the duties undertaken on behalf his employer.

He was appointed Foreman in an environment of declining functions and staff within the Machinery Department.   The Employer contends that the maintenance of historical supervisory structures in this environment would have been neither efficient nor effective.      

There is no record of any union representations being made on the Claimant’s behalf during the regularisation process which took place during 2015 or prior to the proposed recruitment of the Fleet Manager in 2015.

When the opportunity arose for the Claimant to be promoted, he opted not to apply for either the Fleet Manager or Assistant Fleet Manager position.

Exploration of the Claimant’s earnings during the period 2009 – 2017 highlight that the Claimant earned extensive overtime during that period.

On this basis the Employer requests that you do not uphold that the Claimant’s claim and that you find in favour of   the Employer in this instance.

Based on the fact that the Claimant did not seek the higher positions when they became available, as it would have involved a loss of total income to the Claimant, based on the fact the Claimant did not seek, when positions were being “regularised”, to have his position upgraded and that the duties mentioned as additional come within the general scope of the Public Service Stability Agreements 2103-2018   I see limited merit in making a recommendation of compensation for the Claimant in this case as his case could be replicated many times over in the public service.

Specifically Section 3 of the Agreement states “efficiencies need to be maximised and productivity in the use of resources increased through revised work practices and other initiatives”. It also states in Section 3.3.2 “consolidate and reorganise work in line with organisational needs”. Therefore, I can little reasoning to set a precedent in this case. However, on a totally red circled basis and not to be used as a precedent and providing it resolves all and every issue to do with the situation the Claimant found himself in during this time and the duties he performed in many aspects of other roles I recommend the Claimant be paid an amount of 10,000 Euros in compensation, not for lost income as this was not the case, but for the overall contribution he made to keeping the show on the road while other difficult employment issues were being dealt with by the Employer.

Compensation for supporting additional duties