Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Fire Officer

County Council

Representatives

Des Courtney SIPTU

Keith Irvine 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-00032723-001

04/12/2019

3 grievances are referred:

·         A rotation or job sharing of station responsibility has created a lowering of position or status; while no loss has occurred.

·         When returning to the role of Fire Fighter Sub Officer-the worker believes he was placed on the incorrect point on the scale and that no credit for service was applied when he held another position with the Council; however, outside the Fire Service.

·         A right to apply for promotional opportunities has been restricted for a number of years

Senior Sub Officer

The worker commenced employment as Firefighter in September 2008.

He was appointed to the position of acting sub-officer in September 2012.

In December 2013 the worker was appointed to the post of senior sub officer.

From July 2015 to February 2017 the worker transferred to another work department; however, outside the Fire Service.

When he returned in February 2017 and after completing refresher service he returned to his previous role of senior sub officer.

In June 2018 a shop sharing arrangement was implemented concerning the role of senior sub officer lead to a diminution in the worker’s status and responsibility. No diminution in pay occurred.

This job sharing is viewed by the worker as a breach of an agreement not do so. When he returned to the fire service he was told that he would be the senior sub officer. This was also recorded in an email from management dated 14th of November 2017 that the worker would be the senior sub officer.

Any change to this arrangement should have occurred by agreement. While the employer states consultation occurred, in reality the communication of the change took place. No proper consultation occurred. That is a breach of the individual agreement in place and good practice.

Incremental Credit Point

The relevant salary scale reflects service within 5 year bands.

The council contends that service outside the Fire Service is not reckonable for incremental movement.

In an email dated 8th of March 2019 the service stated that:

“At the time of his permanent appointment in December 2013…he was placed on the 2nd point of the sub Officer scale. His contract states that his incremental date would be the 3rd of September 2017, i.e. 5 years after his acting appointment commenced.

However, from the 6th July 2015 to 19th of February 2017, a total 594 days, (the worker) was employed as a (another role). His service does not count towards incremental credit in relation to his Sub Officer post, so his incremental date is therefore 19th April 2019-594 days after 3rd September 2017.”

Removal to apply for full-time positions

The service requires an 85% drill attendance as requirement to apply for these roles. That requirement was not applied consistently. The worker appealed the decision to deny him a right to apply and that appeal was unsuccessful However, the appeal was heard by the same manager who decided he could not apply based on the requirement to have 85% drill attendance. While some progress was made on this grievance, and that an aggregate of 85% would apply over the previous 3 years would suffice, rather than 85% for each of the last 3 years.

The service states that there was no agreement in place with the worker to retain the sub officer role. The role was fulfilled by the worker until a permanent sub officer was appointed in that station. When that happened the sub officer role was split between the worker and the new officer.

There is no credit applied for service outside the Fire Service and that practice is consistent with circulars. There is no circular in existence that allows the council to apply incremental credit in the circumstances moving from the retained firefighter role to warden and back again. That rule applies to all local authorities.

The Council has amended the fire drill attendance to be combined over the last 3 years to meet a cumulative average of 85%.

Senior Sub Officer Role

There was a period where the role was solely held by the worker. There is a dispute between the parties concerning whether or not it was communicated to the worker that he was to hold the position solely. However, there does appear to be some validity in the worker’s view that how the change was managed was unilateral. There was no loss in pay arising from the change. In all of the circumstances and the fact that the service could have implemented the change n following consultation and their right that any practice is co-operated with until final determination; not ignoring how the change was implemented in this case. In industrial relations while it can be acknowledged that a matter was not progressed as well as it might be, there are limits to recommending a remedy. I don’t recommend compensation and find that the worker should accept my finding that the consultation was inadequate, in the interest of good working relations and the fact that on the other matters some progress has been made and has been confirmed at the hearing by the employer.

Date of Next Increment

Section 13 of the Industrial Act 1969 states:

2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act,

And section 40 (9) of the Workplace Relations A

(9) A reference in any enactment to a rights commissioner shall be construed as including a reference to an adjudication officer.

I have concluded that the claim to give credit for service when not directly working in the fire service is a trade dispute connected with rates of pay of a body of workers as it would impact a group of workers and their rates of pay in this council and other councils; therefore, I have no jurisdiction to make a recommendation on this matter.

However, in line with the existing agreement and practice I can make a recommendation on what date the increment is due and have determined that the service have calculated the worker’s incremental date correctly.

The next incremental date is the 19th of April 2019. The practice is not to give credit for service when transferring out of the fire service. The rules are being applied consistently in this council.

Eligibility to Apply

The service has amended their eligibility criterion regarding attendance at fire drills and on that basis based on the workers attendance at the date of the hearing, he was eligible to apply.

I find that the worker has an understandable grievance concerning how the process was handled to share a role that he thought he held and a perceived loss of status from that change. Allowing for the fact that that change has now been implemented and is within the right of the council to do subject to consultation, the worker should accept my finding that the process in communication had some deficiencies. However, as no loss in compensation arose, there are limits to the remedy that may be recommended.

I have no jurisdiction to make a recommendation on service credit as it would impact across the service and I decline jurisdiction on this specific dispute concerning service credit. However, both parties have agreed that I make a determination concerning the date of the next increment.

The incremental date is the 19th of April 2019.

The fire drill eligibility criterion of 85% attendance for each year has been amended and the worker as of the date of the hearing had the required attendance to apply for permanent roles.

Compensation for loss of Status-Jurisdiction