ADJ-00018059

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Carpenter

County Council

Representatives

Shonagh Byrne Advocate, Workers Rights Centre

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-00023234-001

15/11/2018

The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent for 17 years. He is employed as a Carpenter since 2011. In May 2015 the Respondent held interviews for Foreman positions. The Complainant was placed sixth on a Panel. The first four from this Panel were appointed bringing the number of Foreman to six. The Respondent decided that an additional Foreman was required for a specified purpose This was approved on 4th November 2015. It was initially to be for a period of 6 months. The fifth person on the Panel did not fill the position and the Complainant was appointed in an Acting Foreman Position from 3rd January 2016 and he continued in this role for some 2 years and 8 months. The Complainant had not been issued with a temporary contract of employment.

In April 2018 interviews were held for Foreman positions. The Complainant was not successful.

The Complainant was advised by email on 17th August 2018 that effective from 22nd August 2018 he would be returning to his role of Carpenter and that his payment as Acting Foreman would cease.

SIPTU raised the issue with the Respondent on 20th August 2018 and again on 21st August. The Respondent stated that the Foreman positions had been filled from the Panel of 2018 and the Acting payment would cease. SIPTU wrote to the Director of Corporate Performance, named, on 26th September 2018. There was no response and the matter was referred to the WRC.

SIPTU argued that while Acting Foreman the Complainant had an hourly rate of pay of €20.50 and an on-call allowance of €80.00 a week. The Complainant is seeking his reinstatement as Acting Foreman and compensation for loss of earnings effective from 22nd August 2018.

The Complainant is a Carpenter employed with the Respondent. In November 2015 the Chief Executive gave approval for an Acting Foreman post in a specified location and the Complainant was recommended by the Director of Services for the Acting Post. The initial sanction was for 6 months but the Complainant continued in this role until August 2018.

There is a clear understanding that Acting Posts are temporary in nature and that at the end of the period of acting, the employee concerned returns to their substantive grade. This reflects the existing practice and procedure in the case of all acting up positions.

Positions for Foreman were advertised in June 2018. The Complainant applied but he was unsuccessful at interview and he was notified of this on 3rd July 2018. He was notified on 17th August 2018 that following the formation of the new Foreman Panel his role of Acting Foreman would cease on 22nd August 2018.

SIPTU raised a complaint with the Respondent and the Respondent replied that following the assignment of two new Foreman there was now a full complement of Foreman (6) under the Work Force Plan. The Complainant was not the only Acting Foreman to also receive such letters and all have reverted to their substantive grades. The Respondent outlined the numbers of Employees in Acting positions who had been reverted to their substantive grades in 2014 (12) – 2015 (50).

The Respondent also referenced the Complainant’s complaint concerning loss of earnings when he was reverted to his substantive grade and referenced the Haddington Road Agreement which covers this issue.

The Respondent concluded by stating there is an agreement with SIPTU in relation to Quarterly Meetings held with them in relation to the Work Force Plan.

On the basis of the evidence from both Parties it is clearly a practice of the Respondent that positions can be filled on an Acting Basis where the employee returns to their substantive grade when the Acting Up terminates. This is what happened in this case. The Complainant was initially appointed for a six month period which stretched to 2 years and 8 months. It is also clear that permanent positions of Foreman were advertised in June 2018. The Complainant applied but was not successful and the Respondent filled two permanent Foreman Positions from this Panel.

In accordance with Section 13 of the Act, my findings above I do not find in favour of the Complainant in relation to this dispute.

Industrial Relations – Acting Up – Reverted to Substantive Grade – Not successful in Foreman Interview – Finding not in favour of Complainnat.