Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Driver Helper 1

Driver Helper 2

A Local Authority

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, Driver/Helper 1

CA-00011340-001

16/05/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, Driver Helper 2

CA-00011341-001

16/05/2017

The claims in this case referred to a claim for appointment as Driver Helper B scale in keeping with the established practices and procedures pertaining to seniority. The Employer opposed the claim

The Union outlined the claim on behalf of two long term employees. Driver Helper 1 had commenced work at the Local Authority on June 1, 1986. He worked a 47.5 hr week and received a gross pay of €1552.40 per fortnight. Driver Helper 2 had commenced work at the Local Authority on July 1, 1986 worked a 47 hr week and received a gross pay of €1400.00 per fortnight.

The Claimants both sought access to the Driver B pay scale and had been licensed Drivers since 2001 and 2000 respectively. The Union confirmed the presence of a Union /Management Agreement 2011 ,following transfer of Refuse services to a third party.

On February, 17,2017, the Union had received an assurance that the appointments to Driver/B in Street cleaning would not impact on the seniority of the claimants.

CA-00011340-001 Driver /Helper 1

The Claimant sought regularisation in the Driver B role .He submitted that he drove on a regular basis so as to support a regularisation .The Claimant had an understanding that he would be appointed to the role Of Driver B and contended that the Local Authority had awarded both Driver A and Driver B status to staff members in the Street Cleaning section and he contended that he had been disadvantaged in terms of his pre-existing position on the seniority listing from a 2011 Agreement .

The appointments in street cleaning/litter management were sanctioned from May 2017. The pay differential   between Driver A and Driver B was €10 per week. The pay Differential between General Operative and Driver A amounted to €28.71 per week.

The Claimant contended that he had been overtaken by these regularisations in May 2017 and sought reciprocal regularisation.

CA-00011341-001 Driver /Helper 2

The Claimant sought regularisation in the Driver B role .He submitted that he drove on a regular basis so as to support a regularisation .The Claimant had an understanding that he would be appointed to the role Of Driver B and contended that the Local Authority had awarded both Driver A and Driver B status to staff members in the Street Cleaning section and he contended that he had been disadvantaged in terms of his pre-existing position on the seniority listing from a 2011 Agreement .

The appointments in street cleaning/litter management were sanctioned from May 2017. The pay differential   between Driver A and Driver B was €10 per week. The pay Differential between General Operative and Driver A amounted to €28.71 per week.

The Claimant contended that he had been overtaken by these regularisations in May 2017 and sought reciprocal regularisation. He referred to his extensive driving record prior to 2011.

The Employer outlined the history of a transfer of the Local Authorities Refuse/Recycling service to a third-party provider in August 2011. The Employer referenced a Union/Management agreement which covered the terms and conditions of the staff that were at that time directly involved in the operation of service.

16 Operational staff were assigned on a full-time basis to vehicles operating the refuse service and the remaining two staff accepted voluntary redundancy. The Employer quoted from Part 8 of the Agreement:

Staff who take up positions in the cleansing Section following redeployment may claim vacant permanent positions that arise in the future, on seniority grounds. However, this agreement does not supersede pre-existing seniority arrangements in relation to driving, overtime, weekend work etc. on beats which operated prior to the agreement.

Three of the Staff Members listed as beneficiaries of the Agreement have subsequently been appointed to the Grade of Driver Helper on seniority grounds in accordance with the 2011 Agreement. The list is based on the date that each staff member submitted their appropriate driving licence to the Dept.

The Employer submitted a list of current Driver Helpers and clarified that Relief Driver /Helpers are not assigned to a specific vehicle and this distinguished them from the Local Authority regularisation of nine Driver /Helpers in May 2017. These regularisations evolved by way of a National Public Service Agreement and referred to those in active Driving roles.

CA-00011340-001 Driver /Helper 1

The Employer submitted that the Claimant was redeployed as a General Operative following the transfer of services. His name is placed on the Seniority list and Drivers log and he is awaiting appointment as Driver Helper from this list.

The Employer confirmed that the Claimant had carried out a total of 75 days driving on Driver B class vehicles during September 1, 2016 and August 31, 2017. He received the higher Duty allowance for these periods. Driver B vehicles were not utilised for 24 days over the course of that year.

The Claimant is not regarded as eligible or available for work on suction sweepers as he was assigned to the Rapid Response Unit and not Floatation.

The Employer maintained that the Local Authority had upheld the Union Agreement and the Claimant was expected to be appointed To Driver Helper B during time in accordance with the terms of the 2011 Agreement.

The Employer contended that the May 2017 regularisations did not encompass the claimant. This Agreement had followed the national staffing moratorium and was penned by a Government body.

CA-00011341-001 Driver /Helper 2

The claimant redeployed as a General Operative performing relief suction sweeper driver/helper duties and relief driver duties in Rapid Response operations when required. It was agreed that he would undertake General Operative duties in the absence of driving work.

The Employer confirmed that the Claimant had carried out a total of 188 days driving on Driver B class vehicles during September 1, 2016 and August 31, 2017. He received the higher Duty allowance for these periods. Driver B vehicles were not utilised for 24 days over the course of that year, but this did not affect the claimant.

The Employer confirmed that the Claimant was listed higher on the seniority listing to other staff recently regularised. The Employer outlined that prior to the present incumbents holding the positions which were regularised, the Claimant was offered the positions but declined in favour of a Driver Float position, viewed as more lucrative.

The Claimant remains on the seniority listing and should a suitable permanent position become available in the future, the claimant will be offered the position in accordance with the terms of the 2011 Agreement.

CA-00011340-001 Driver /Helper 1

I have considered the submissions raised by both parties in this case. I understand that the claimant is keen to secure the permanent alignment to a Driver B position. I note that almost 7 years have elapsed since the 2011 Agreement was formed. At that time, the claimant was classified as Driver/Loader who transferred to the General Operative grade with retention of certain conditions of employment. I note the red-circled arrangements and provision for loss of earnings as part of that Agreement .

In terms of the current consolidated list of Drivers Seniority, the claimant rests second to his colleague in this case. He is virtually next in line in Agreement terms. I appreciate that the claimant has considered himself somewhat derailed in the context of the National regularisations of May 2017, which elevated colleagues Drivers positions from a lower ranking order on the seniority listing. I have found that this is a case of a National and local agreement colliding with a resultant unease. It is a case which deserves attention and remedial action. I appreciate that the Employer has an obligation to both groups of staff .

I did inquire on the Local Authority’s Workforce plan for 2018 to ascertain whether veritable appointment opportunities may follow for the claimant in the natural course of events following leavers/retirees? This information was not to hand.

I note that the Claimant had acted as a Driver for a total of 75 working days in the calendar year before the hearing. This did not satisfy the criteria where regularisations were linked to those paired to vehicles consistently. I note the assurances given to the Union on protection of seniority places.

I have concluded my investigation in the case and find that there is some merit in the Dispute

CA-00011341-001 Driver /Helper 2

I have considered the submissions raised by both parties in this case. I understand that the claimant is keen to secure the permanent alignment to a Driver B position. I note that almost 7 years have elapsed since the 2011 Agreement was formed. At that time, the claimant was classified as Driver who transferred to the General Operative grade with retention of certain conditions of employment. I note the red-circled arrangements and provision for loss of earnings as part of that Agreement .

In terms of the current consolidated list of Drivers Seniority, the claimant rests as the most senior name on the consolidated list . He is next in line in Agreement terms. I note that he preserved his position on the seniority panel when earlier offers were not accepted by him. This is a fair approach adopted by the Employer .

I appreciate that the claimant has considered himself somewhat derailed in the context of the National regularisations of May 2017, which elevated colleagues Drivers positions from a lower ranking order on the seniority listing. I have found that this is a case of a National and local agreement colliding with a resultant unease. It is a case which deserves attention and remedial action.

I did inquire on the Local Authority’s Workforce plan for 2018 to ascertain whether veritable appointment opportunities may follow for the claimant in the natural course of events following leavers/retirees? This information was not to hand.

I note that the Claimant had acted as a Driver for a total of 188 working days in the calendar year before the hearing.This comprises the vast majority of the working year . However, this did not satisfy the criteria where regularisations were linked to those paired to vehicles consistently. I note the assurances given to the Union on protection of seniority places.

I have concluded my investigation in the case and find that there is some merit in the Dispute.    

Dated:     08/02/18

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Key Words:

Claim for Upgrading