Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

County Council

Representatives

Ger Malone SIPTU

Keith Irvine Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00042501-001

15/02/2021

The worker seeks an upgrade based on relativity to other colleagues regarding the technical complexity of the role and the fact that other colleagues have the higher grade based on technical responsibility and a smaller scale of responsibility than detailed in the organisation/union agreement that determines grading. On this basis he seeks comparability. The Council’s position is that the worker is correctly evaluated against the criteria in the agreement.

The worker exceeds the technical criteria required to be upgraded. While he does not meet the volume or scale criteria, neither do most of the other operations where colleagues have been awarded the higher grade. A careful analysis of the agreement clearly shows that he is exceeding the technical know-how for his grade as detailed in the agreements. It also is important to note that he stands in at another plant that attracts the higher grade. In fact, he has been told by Engineers that his role should be upgraded. Other colleagues who have the higher grade don’t meet the volume criteria as detailed in the agreement. If the organisation sticks to a rigid view of the agreement, then it would mean that there are certain tasks that he shouldn’t be performing now.

The worker does not meet the criteria as set out in the agreement for regrading as there are two broad criteria: technical and the scale of the operation. The worker in this case has responsibility for a treatment plant that serves a couple of hundred dwellings. The comparators while they ae not meeting the exact volume requirements, their treatment plants service a couple of thousand dwellings. There is no question that the worker is committed and skilled. However, the treatment plant and scale of operation determines the grading. This must also be viewed in terms of the history of the grading agreements; where consolidation took place, and the grading system was simplified. It also must be seen in the light of flexibility agreements applying to the worker. In this context the role is correctly graded.

The higher grade referred to as Grade 5 details the following:

Grade 5: Major water supply schemes with comprehensive treatment works and an operating capacity of more than 2 million gallons of water per day.

A 1983 circular relating to the agreement details local features that may be taken into consideration:

                                 i.            Adequacy of schemes and sensitivity of scheme

                               ii.            Length and condition of pipeline

                             iii.            Local flexibility-caretaker may have duties other than those relating to the waterworks

                              iv.            Number of schemes under a caretaker’s charge

                               v.            Density of population served by the scheme

                              vi.            Distribution system

                            vii.            Maintenance, meter reading etc

                          viii.            Supervisory duties

                              ix.            Technical backup

                               x.            Location

                              xi.            Sensitivity of receiving waters (sewerage schemes)

                            xii.            Source, type, and number.

The worker also covers at another plant which is associated with Grade V and receives the grade 5 payment when carrying out those duties.

There is no question about the capability of the worker to carry out a higher-level role as demonstrated by the fact that he covers already at another plant that attracts the grade 5 payment.

The fact is that the plant that the worker is associated with is a much smaller plant providing services to a couple of hundred homes in contrast to a couple of thousand.

While other plants don’t meet the specific volume criteria, they do process and service much higher level of volumes and serve significantly more homes by a very wide margin.

It is a fact that the technology in place at the various plants have been upgraded and while the worker’s grade originally described technical duties that have been superseded by technological advances, flexibility agreements take account of this expected evolution. The fact is the plant is operating at much lower volumes than other plants that attract the higher grade, primarily due to their scale of operation and the number of dwellings that they serve.

The dispute has been through the internal grievance process and no resolution has been found to the grievance.

The Council hold that the technical duties are as provided in the Modernisation Agenda as detailed at Appendix 6.

That agreement detailed in Circular Letter EL 4/2004 states:

In accordance with the binding adjudication referred to above, all Waterworks and Sewerage Caretakers in the existing Grade 1 and Grade 2 will be placed on the Grade 3 pay scale and all staff in the existing Grade 4 will be place on the Grade 5 pay scale with effect from 1st July 2003.

At 3(a) Mobility & Flexibility states:

Acceptance of and full co-operation with all existing and new technology, equipment, and management systems, including for example use of PC’s, handheld electronic devices, satellite navigation, online reporting, GPS, mobile data, SCADA etc.

The key issue in this dispute relates to the scale of operation.

There is no doubt that the worker can perform at the Grade 5 level. However, job evaluation is determined by the role that the incumbent holds not by the capability to perform a higher graded role.

The agreements determining job grading clearly set out to emphasise the importance of the technical and the scale of operations.

The historical context of reducing the number of grades from 5 to 2 must also be considered and the fact this took place under the heading of modernisation and flexibility.

At a personal level it is frustrating that capacity to do a job; doesn’t equate to opportunity to be assigned fulltime to a higher role. However, grading is also subject to competing interests and the requirement to be fair to all parties.

The scale of the worker’s operation is an impediment to upgrading to Grade 5 and while others may not meet the scale criteria as specified in the original agreement; the relative difference between these plants and the worker’s is very substantial.

Allowing for the relativity issues that do arise based on the agreements that exist concerning grading; I do not recommend an upgrade to level 5 having regard to the scale and volume of the worker’s plant. However, the agreements between the parties also details other factors that can be considered when job sizing a role. Those other factors and potential new responsibilities should be explored so that the role maybe considered for an upgrade provided by the agreement and as detailed in the 1981 circular and referenced in this recommendation.

The scale and volume of the plant is a key factor in determining whether a role is grade level 5. The worker based on the existing agreements is properly graded; albeit he can perform the duties of the level 5 role. The worker based on the facts particularly in the context of the volume difference between his and comparators and along with the flexibility clause to cooperate with new technology is correctly graded. I note that the agreement allows for local features that may be taken into consideration for an upgrade. That framework provides a structure to explore if the role responsibilities can be meaningfully expanded to equate with the volume criterion. I recommend that the parties explore the feasibility of expanding the role in the context of the other features that maybe considered as detailed in the 1981 circular that are in addition to the existing duties and responsibilities. In that context if the parties fail to agree based on that framework as detailed in the 1981 circular; the dispute can be referred back for a recommendation.

Grading