Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Environmental Patrol Warden

 A Local Authority

Representatives

 SIPTU

 LGMA

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-00027514-001

04/04/2019

The worker is employed by the respondent since 1999. The current dispute relates to whether the worker was employed by a named Urban District Council or a named County Council at the time a Collective Agreement was concluded in 2009.

The worker contends that he was employed by the named Urban District Council in 2009 and therefore the terms of the Collective Agreement state that he will not be required to move outside of his particular area of work and/or the boundary of the Town in question.

The employer contends that the worker was employed by the named County Council at the material time and as a result the terms of the Collective Agreement do not apply to him. The employer also contends that irrespective of the Agreement concluded in 2009, the Urban District Councils ceased to exist in 2014 by virtue of the Local Government Act of the same year and that all employees were deemed to be employees of the County Council thereafter.

In relation to this dispute, I find as follows:

The parties are in dispute in relation to who employed the worker at the time of a Collective Agreement concluded in 2009. The import of this appears to be that if the worker was deemed to be an employee of a named Urban District Council at the time, the terms of the Collective Agreement provided that all employees covered by the Agreement would not be required to work or be assigned outside of the Urban District in question.

The Trade Union has stated that at the material time (2009) the worker was employed by the named Urban District Council and was named in the Collective Agreement and is therefore not required to work outside of the agreed area.

The employer stated that the worker was employed by the named County Council and not the named Urban District Council. Accordingly, the Collective Agreement of 2009 does not apply to him. The employer also stated that the Local Government Act of 2014 abolished the Urban District/Town Councils and all workers became employees of the named County Councils at that time and were required to abide by the changes and provide the required flexibilities which were in line with the provisions of the National Agreements prevailing at the time.

As agreed with the parties, my findings and conclusion on this dispute will focus on who the employer was at the material time of the Collective Agreement.

In reaching a conclusion on this issue I note the following:

The worker began his employment with the Urban District Council as a Permanent Litter Warden with effect from 4^th October 1999. The role in the Urban District Council was temporarily upgraded to Environment Patrol Warden in April 2000 and that job became the worker’s substantive role with effect from 1^st June 2000. The question is if he was regularised in the role in the Urban District Council on 1^st June 2000 or if he became an employee of the County Council at that time in the same role, effective from the same date, and in the same location albeit on secondment to the Urban District Council.

The worker contends that although he was offered the permanent role by the County Council on 30^th May 2000 and signed the terms and conditions pertaining to that role, he stated that he didn’t take up this offer as he was already working in the Urban District Council and would be acting up into the role until September 2000 and was seeking permanency in that role which was duly granted in July 2000 with an effective date of 1^st June 2000.

In conclusions and relating to the substantive issue, I accept the worker’s position that he was employed by the Urban District Council and continued in that employment when regularised as an Environmental Patrol Warden from June 2000 onwards having temporarily carried out the role since April 2000. The subsequent inclusion of the worker in the 2009 Collective Agreement further adds to my belief that the worker was at all material times employed by the Urban District Council.

In all of the circumstances of this dispute I find that the worker was employed by the Urban District Council and that the terms of the Collective Agreement concluded in 2009 applied to him at that time. Accordingly, I recommend that any issues arising be dealt with through local grievance procedures and outstanding issues referred to the Adjudication services of the WRC in due course if required.