Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Council Worker

A Council

Representatives

SIPTU

 Internal/Self-represented

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 - 00000094

20/04/2022

The Worker started work for the Employer (a Council) in September 1986 and works as General Operative in a [geographic area redacted] Roads Municipal District.

The Worker is paid at the maximum of the General Operative scale (March 2023 rate = €685.82 per week) and is in receipt of overtime and allowances where applicable.

The Worker is seeking payment for banksman duties which he submits go above and beyond his general duties and comprise a significant level of responsibility, and which he submits were assigned to him by a supervisor and which he continues to perform on an ongoing basis.

The Worker submits: “I am not receiving the appropriate allowance(s)/rate of pay for undertaking ‘Banksman’ duties on behalf of my employer.”

The Worker submits that he was assigned additional duties (i.e. banksman duties) by his supervisor, which he continues to carry out. He submits that his supervisor submitted/signed off the forms seeking to have the Worker paid a “banksman rate” which was rejected by the Employer on the basis that no such rate existed.

The Worker submits that he is very aggrieved by this and feels that he is being penalised for his work ethic, that the banksman role on site is a significant one, and particularly important in terms of the health and safety of those on site and that he continues to carry out additional duties which were assigned to him.

The Worker has exhausted internal avenues prior to submitting a claim to the WRC. He raised the issue locally and through his union, and the Employer rejected his claim responding that he is paid the correct applicable allowances and that no further payments are outstanding.

The Employer submits that it does not have a “banksman” rate and that any suggestion of creating a “banksman rate” would be a cost increasing claim, precluded under the current Public Service Agreement.

The Employer submits that it pays a Flagman rate in the following circumstances that were agreed with SIPTU in 2008: “Flagman rate is payable where an employee is on permanent (all day) duty as flagman such as surface dressing or overlay work. The rate is not paid if the employee is on occasional intermittent duty, such as pothole repairs, where there is a large degree of moving on to new locations.” The Employer submits that the Worker is in receipt of the flagman rate in every pay period. This includes 45 working days in 2023 up to April 24th  2023 (70 days worked).

The Employer submits that a banksman is responsible for directing the movement of vehicles and plant on or around a site. The role of a Banksman is a standard health & safety duty in the Employer Council as most outdoor work involves vehicles reversing or manoeuvring around a site or work area. The Employer submits that General Operatives and other outdoor staff can carry out this work once they have received the appropriate health & safety training. This training consists of a ½ day training course and a 4-year refresher period. Training records show that 395 Council staff have completed the Banksman course.

The Employer submits that the creation of a “Banksman rate” would have significant costs for the Employer Council, given the number of 395 staff who are health & safety trained for that activity, and given the number of work locations in operation each day across a county with 12,000 kms of road network.

The Employer submits that there is a large amount of Health & Safety related training for outdoor staff in order to undertake safe outdoor work within the competency and duty of their grade, and that the undertaking of appropriate training relevant to the safe operation of outdoor work does not attract additional allowances to the role. It submits that the ability to direct reversing machinery is a basic function of outdoor work, and that this is underscored by the fact that 395 Council staff have completed the Banksman training.

The Employer submitted a list of its policy and procedures/method statement documents which refer to banksman activity and suggests that the list shows the range and extent of banksman activity to be so commonplace as to be part of the normal duty for any trained member of outdoor staff.

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

I conclude that the Employer does not have a banksman rate and that the banksman duties form part of the Worker’s duties for which he is paid the applicable agreed rates and allowances.

I accept the Employer’s submission that the creation of a banksman rate would constitute a cost-increasing measure, which is precluded by Public Services Agreement. In any case, I conclude that it would go beyond my proper jurisdiction in relation to this dispute as it would have implications for the terms and conditions of a collective of staff.

I find that the Worker is being paid appropriately for his role, and that no monies are due and owing.

I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.

Pay; Allowances; Flagman; Banksman;