Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Special Needs Assistant

An Education and Training Board

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-00016189-001

07/12/2017

This case involves a dispute between the Complainant, a SNA, and an ETB regarding the seniority of the Complainant on the Board’s panel of staff. Placement and positioning on the Panel is critical to the Complainant as it largely determines access/employment to new School placements in the following year.

The Complainant commenced as an SNA in 2014. It is undisputed that her service runs from this date.

The key issue for the Complainant is the service being allocated to another SNA (called SNA X) and in particular whether or not this other employee had a break in SNA service during the period 2014 to 2016. It would be deemed by the Complainant that this break in service effectively means that SNA X can only claim reckonable service from 2016 thus making her more “junior” to the Complainant. The practical implications of this seniority issue are in the future allocations of SNA positions and in the school locations offered within the geographical remit of the Respondent ETB.

The Respondent maintained that the service of SNA X was not broken by the period of non-Direct SNA work during 2014-2016. Accordingly, she is more “senior “to the Complainant. A detailed history of the service of SNA X was given to the hearing in addition to detailed references to special personal difficulties of SNA X.

If the arguments of the Complainant had been accepted on full face value by the CE of the ETB it could have resulted in SNA X having to transfer to another school location. This would have given rise to considerable hardship to SNA X at a time of great vulnerability in her personal/family life.

In addition, the Respondent pointed to an alleged failure by the Complainant to fully exhaust all internal procedures governing SNA appointments. Furthermore, the interpretation /adjudication on /of Department of Education and Science circulars by all parties to this case is a matter for central National Level Negotiations. On both of these grounds it was contended that the Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Service was not suitable for this case.

Having carefully reviewed all the evidence both written and especially oral in this case I had to come to the conclusion that there was considerable local level “Uisce faoi tahlamh” (de bhaldraithe 1959) completely overshadowing this case. I did not accept the argument that the Adjudication Service did not have a role in this case.

There are, in my view fundamental questions with the reckoning of SNA service in the context of this case. The motivations of the parties may well have been honourable but a considerable degree of confusion has been created.

I noted ,with disappointment , that a meeting between the parties on the 5th December 2017 had explored the issue but to no obvious outcome.

It is my view, under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, that a local resolution of this case between the parties, hopefully using a Mediation Service, is the only possible satisfactory outcome.

Accordingly, I am recommending that the services of a skilled Mediator be engaged as soon as possible

In addition, I am recommending, under the Industrial Relations Act,1969, that the Complainant not be disadvantaged from a calculation of service point of view from any comparisons with the other SNA in this case. In other words, the Complainant be deemed to have, as a holding measure, until a comprehensive local agreement is achieved between the parties, equality of seniority with SNA X.