Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Executive Fire Prevention Officer

A Local Authority

Representatives

SIPTU

The Employer’s Employee Relations & Development Unit

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

25/02/2021

FP commenced employment with this local authority in February 1998 in the Building Control Department, and in 2002, he joined the fire service.  In 2017, he was appointed as a senior executive fire prevention officer (SEFPO), having occupied that role in an acting capacity since 2007.  This dispute concerns FP’s grievance that, in 2020, he was moved from District C, where he had worked for several years and that he was not appointed to a role of “district leader.”  The management’s position is that there is no role of “district leader.”

Efforts were made by the union to have this matter resolved at a local level.  In December 2020, the grievance process concluded with no satisfactory outcome for FP and, in February 2020, SIPTU referred the dispute to the WRC.

In his submission, Mr Courtney stated that the “district leader” position is a role, as opposed to a post, for which a specific advertisement and appointment process is required.  The substantive post is that of SEFPO.  It is important to FP to be appointed to the role of district leader, as this will allow him to compete for promotion and to advance his career in the fire service.

Despite the assertions of management to the contrary, Mr Courtney argued that the evidence presented by SIPTU verifies that the post of district leader does exist, and that it is recognised as a term which is in common usage in the fire service.  Mr Courtney said that several pieces of correspondence from management in the fire service confirm that the role exists.

Mr Courtney outlined the background to the dispute about the appointment to the role of district leader.  In his submission, he stated that in January 2020, following the appointment of a new assistant chief fire officer, “a number of roles to lead a district…became vacant and available.”  He said that it is the established custom and practice that any vacant role at this level is offered, based on seniority, to the next most senior SEFPO.  FP’s grievance is that these roles were offered instead to fire prevention officers who are less senior to him, in terms of both experience and qualifications.  FP’s seniority has not been recognised, he was offered no leadership position of any kind and he was instead instructed to leave his existing section and to move to assist the leader of the Events Section.  He claims that, in accordance with custom and practice, he is entitled to be offered the role of district leader.

In support of this position, Mr Courtney submitted copies of five documents which refer to the role of district leader:

20 August 2014:  A letter to all officers from the assistant chief fire officer instructing that the district officer is to be informed of absences from work.

17 February 2016:  An email to all personnel from the assistant chief fire officer with the same message contained the letter of August 20th 2014.

12 April 2016:  Minutes of a meeting with the assistant chief fire officer and the SEFPOs which notes that “inspections are taking place without district leaders being informed.”

18 October 2016:  Minutes of a meeting with the assistant chief fire officer and the SEFPOs which notes that “district leaders are to look at number of staff required and why they are required.”  

16 April 2018:  An email to all personnel with a table of roles across four districts.  The role of district leader is clearly noted in the four districts. 

In support of his contention that FP is entitled to be appointed to the role of district leader, Mr Courtney included a copy of an email from the former assistant chief fire officer to FP on January 31st 2022.  Referring to FP’s query about the issue, the former assistant chief fire officer stated, “I would have thought you had an open and shut case on this matter, post and roles are filled through seniority and this should be pursued through the normal HR channels.  Senior man on the panel has first refusal.”   

At the hearing, and, in response to the employer’s submission, FP said that, contrary to the employer’s statement that there are five districts to be managed, there are in fact, six districts.  The one omitted has a population of 250,000.  FP said that it is misleading not to acknowledge that roles are filled based on seniority.  He said that the district leader manages the district.  He claims that a more junior officer was offered the role and that he has been ignored.  He complained that he is assigned to one of the two districts out of six that has two seniors.  He said that he needs to run a district on his own to show that he has management experience.  If he goes for an interview, he needs to show that he can “juggle many balls in the air” and therefore, the role of district leader is important. 

In the submission he sent to me after the hearing on March 21st 2022, FP again referred to the documents he submitted as appendix 2 of his original submission, with clear references to the role of district leader.  He also pointed out that there are six districts in the region, and not five, a point accepted by the employer’s side at the hearing itself. 

FP said that the employer does not acknowledge that the fire service “completely functions on the basis of seniority” and that, for decades, in accordance with custom and practice, roles have been filled based on seniority.  He claims that there are agreements with unions on how roles are filled and consultations regarding the creation of new roles.  He also claims that the employer’s submission disregards Irish and EU legislation on the provision of information and consultation with employees regarding the creation of new roles and postings.  In support of these arguments, he submitted a copy of an agreement between SIPTU, IMPACT and the management of the fire service dated August 8th 2003 which is headed “Agreement on Officer Transfers and Postings.”  The first principle of this agreement is that “seniority will apply when permanent transfers and postings are being considered.”  I note that the second principle is that “management carries the final responsibility for postings and this may require departure from the norm from time to time.” 

The final document submitted by FP after the hearing is titled “Fire Prevention February 2020,” a document drawn up by management, showing six districts and the SEFPO’s, executive fire prevention officers and other personnel assigned to each.  The note shows that two named SEFPOs “will be responsible” for two of the districts.

Conclusion

Mr Courtney submitted that, in respect of this matter, “the employer appears to be denying the existence of a post it recognises and acknowledges.”  He asked if the agreement on seniority is “unilaterally being withdrawn?”  In conclusion, he asked me to recommend that FP is appointed to a role of district leader.

The employer’s submission provided a table of five districts, A – E, in the region.  It was acknowledged at the hearing that there are in fact, six districts, A – F.  FP is assigned to district C, where he works with one other SEFPO.  Each SEFPO has between one and three executive fire officers reporting to them.  Other roles include assistant fire officers and district officers, but these jobs are not relevant to the matter being considered here.

Depending on the district’s needs, a different number of each rank of fire officer is assigned to work in each district.  The employer’s submission states that, depending on the number of persons with the same rank in the district, work is distributed based on experience, function and availability.  This is managed within each district in a professional manner, with the personnel operating as a team to deliver the statutory duties of the service.  Each officer at a particular rank carries out work of equal status to other officers at the same rank.

District C, where FP is assigned, is a busy area in relation to the issuing of enforcements and the team there consists of two SEFPOs and one executive fire prevention officer.  At the rank of SEFPO, responsibilities require technical knowledge coupled with management experience.  SEFPOs are expected to make decisions and to issue recommendations and sign documents and letters in accordance with the Building Control Act, the Fire Services Act and the Dangerous Substances Act.

Arising from the outcome from the Fire Safety in Ireland Task Force, one of the key objectives of the fire service is to reinforce community awareness of fire safety.  A growing area which is demanding the resources of the service is event licensing.  In the context of these two areas of concern, on January 23rd 2020, FP was requested to attend a meeting with the chief fire office and the assistant chief fire officer.  At the meeting, FP was asked to take on a role with responsibility for events.  The employer’s submission notes that this is “a significant role, with a varied and interesting workload.”  At the meeting, FP raised the issue of the district leader position, and he was informed that no such position existed.  He refused to engage further on the issue.

It is the employer’s case that there is no role of “district leader” in the fire service; the term is not recognised by the service and is not in common usage.  The employee relations manager, “ER,” argued that it is not possible to appoint someone to a role that doesn’t exist.  The promotional path for fire officers is as follows:

1.      Assistant fire prevention officer

2.      Executive fire prevention officer

3.      Senior executive fire prevention officer

4.      Assistant chief fire officer

5.      Chief fire officer

In December 2020, FP’s grievance was not upheld by the executive manager with responsibility for employee relations; however, ER said that FP does not accept the above promotional path as the reality in the fire service.   

The second element of FP’s grievance is that he has been given responsibility for managing the events function in his district, in conjunction with an officer at the same rank, SEFPO.  It is the employer’s position that this role is one of the core functions of a SEFPO.  Concluding the employer’s submission, ER said that it is the function of management to identify and assign the most suitable staff at the appropriate rank to carry out the functions in the fire service.  Based on FP’s rank and experience, he has been identified as the most suitable person to manage the responsibility for events in his district.

I have considered all the information presented to me at the hearing of this matter and it is apparent that, at least until 2018, the title, “district leader” was used to describe the SEFPO who had certain responsibilities in a district, at least in relation to absence and staffing.   At the hearing, ER said that the term was in use when the previous chief fire officer was in the role.  At the hearing, the current chief fire officer said that it does not form part of the agreed structure today.

The union’s position on this matter is that a vacant post of district leader has not been assignedn to FP.  Their position is that, if there is no longer a role of district leader, then the union should be informed.

FP complained that he was assisting the other SEFPO in his region, a predicament he claims will hinder his career prospects.  At the hearing however, it was clear that the employer’s position is that the two SEFPOs in a district “have a shared leadership role.”  FP argued that “when you’re on your own, you take on all the roles” and, “when you share the roles, someone is more senior.”  ER said that all the roles in the district are available for FP to carry out; however, FP complained that he shared the district with a more senior officer and that the work he looks after is delegated to him by the more senior officer.  At the hearing, the assistant chief fire officer said, that when she engages with the districts, she communicates to both SEFPOs at the same time, and she doesn’t consider one more senior than the other.

Rationale for the Recommendation Below

In 2003, the unions in the fire service reached an agreement with management that, in general, “permanent postings” would be based on seniority.  I note that there is no reference to a “district leader” in this document.  The agreement was intended to be reviewed in 12 months; however, no subsequent agreement was produced to show that the policy remains in place.  With the amendment of the Employment Equality Act in 2004, there is no place for seniority in any selection process, even for non-remunerated roles, as it inevitably leads to indirect discrimination.  I have no doubt that if the employer was to rely on this document in defence of its decision to assign work to an employee, they would be found to be acting illegally.

The information presented to me at the hearing shows that, up until 2018, or, up to the end of the tenure of the last chief fire officer, the SEFPO with the longest service in each of the six districts was referred to as the “district leader.”  It is apparent that, under the present management team, the role of district leader does not exist and all the jobs in the current structure are filled by open competition through the Public Appointments Service.  The discontinuation of, or the elimination of the role of district leader seems to have occurred by natural decline.  This does not appear to have gained the attention or interest of either of the unions, which, because the agreement is tainted by the risk of discrimination, was not unreasonable. 

At the hearing, FP was concerned that his career prospects would be disadvantaged if he couldn’t show that he was responsible for a district.  He wants to be able to demonstrate that he can take on responsibility on his own.  I am certain that every SEFPO has individual tasks to manage, and I don’t think FP’s prospects are hampered by working alongside another SEFPO.  It is my view that one of the most critical qualities of a leader is the ability to collaborate, and one of the key competencies that he will be judged on in any promotional competition is team-working.

It's clear to me that FP’s grievance is that he has been assigned to a district where he works alongside a SEFPO who has longer service than him.  He operates on the assumption that this person is senior to him, whereas it is the employer’s position that both are equal.  In an organisation such as the fire service in the region in which it operates, with constant changes in population, personnel and technology, the current structure will be developed and re-adjusted to suit the needs of the service on an on-going basis.  No staffing structure is fixed, and I would encourage FP to use every assignment to which he is appointed, to gain experience and to continue to make a valuable contribution to the service, as he has done for the past 20 years.

I recommend that the employer takes no further action on this matter.

Seniority as a criterion for appointment to roles in the fire service.