Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Senior Fire Officer

Local Authority

Representatives

Forsa Trade Union

Local Government Management Agency

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00000083

14/04/2022

This dispute relates to the worker's request to be placed on the senior fire officer’s roster for the Local Authority.

This would result in an extra payment of €7,000 per annum to the worker.

The worker was appointed assistant Chief Fire Officer in January 2021. He made several attempts to be included on the Senior Fire Officers roster to no avail. He raised the matter with the Chief Fire Officer which was declined. He then lodged a formal grievance with the Employer's own grievance and disciplinary policy.

The worker acknowledged that no response had been forthcoming from the human resources department to his formal grievance or correspondence from his Union.

The worker submitted an agreement entered in July 1996 on the rostering of Senior Fire Officers. He submitted this was transposed to circular EL 8/96 EL 632.

The worker referred to his contract of employment which stipulated his requirement to be part of the Senior Fire Officers roster and referenced the 1996 agreement.

He submitted that his absence from the roster diminished his opportunities for promotion and eroded his 30 years operational experience.

He also submitted that he was at an economic loss in accepting the permanent position of Assistant Chief Fire Officer from his earlier position of whole time Station Officer.

The employer's case is that an agreement was entered into in 1995 in which each local authority is required to put in place a rostered on-call system for Senior Fire Officers.

The procedure agreed stated "the majority of rosters will consist of four participants… It is accepted that in exceptional cases, rosters with a higher number of participants may be necessary".

The employer's case was that the worker was not placed on the roster as the Senior Fire Officers roster has already for participants on it.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I have taken time to consider my recommendation.  The parties were well represented at the hearing, made substantial written and oral submissions and all parties were courteous to me and the hearing process.

While it is not good HR practice for an employer not to progress a worker’s formal grievance, I do not believe that referring the grievance back to be dealt with internally will result in any different outcome for the worker. 

It is accepted practice that an employer decides how many participants it requires to be placed on any roster. In this case, the employer has decided that 4 participants are the correct number for its Senior Fire Officer roster.

To add the worker to the roster would result in an additional cost of €7000 per annum being imposed on the employer.

Had the employer decided there were exceptional circumstances to warrant a change in the rostering system in place, it would have to seek approval through the normal channels for this increase on the roster.  It has not made that decision despite the worker’s application.

Senior Fire Officer Roster.