Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Litter Warden

County Council

Representatives

Ms. Aine Feeney, SIPTU Workers Rights Centre

Mr. 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

IR - SC - 00000171

27/04/2022

The Worker commenced employment is a permanent, full-time employee of the Respondent. On 27th April 2022, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. In circumstances whereby the Employer positively elected to engage in the dispute, the matter proceeded to hearing on 12th September 2022.

By submission, the Worker requested an independent job evaluation to determine whether she is entitled to additional benefits and pay. In denying this allegation, the Respondent stated that that they have no facility to provide internal job evaluations, that any recommendation in this regard would have consequent effect for numerous workers within the local councils and that the recommendation sought by the Worker would constitute a cost increasing claim in contravention of the relevant public sector agreement.

The Worker submitted that she had been employed by the Employer since October 2001 as a litter warden. In 2018, the Complainant was requested to assist with enforcement duties by the Environmental Section of the Employer, in circumstances whereby they were short staffed. The Worker was requested to take on a list of inspections, so as to assist the engineer assigned to the section.

Over the course of 2020 & 2021, the Worker through her representative raised the issue of the Worker’s rate of pay in respect of these additional duties. By response the Employer stated that they had no facility by which to increase the Worker’s rate of pay outside of the agreed pay scale system. They further stated that they were not in a position to move the Worker to a different pay scale in light of the public sector agreements.  Thereafter the Worker sought an independent job evaluation to assess the Worker’s duties and the appropriate rate of pay in respect of the same. Following a further refusal in this regard, the present dispute was referred for adjudication.

In summary, the Worker via her representative submitted that she is entitled to be remunerated for all of the duties that she carries out. In particular, the Worker submitted that she is entitled to an increase in remuneration in respect of the additional duties she has completed since 2018.  In this regard, the Worker requested that she be re-graded appropriately or that her role is subject to a third party job evaluation.

The position of the Employer is that the present dispute is two-fold. Firstly, they submitted that the present dispute is a cost increasing complaint and must be viewed in terms of Section 8.3 of the relevant public service agreement. They submit that the rate of pay attaching to the grade being sought would result in an increase of approximately 20% across all points of the scale. They further submitted that the council does not provide job evaluations and that a recommendation in respect of the same would have consequent effect for a number of other employees.

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

The first point to consider is whether the present dispute relates to a cost increasing complaint, as prohibited by section 8.3 of the relevant public service agreement. The essence of the present dispute is that the Worker believes that she is not being properly remunerated for the duties she undertakes outside of her normal contractual duties. Ultimately, the Worker believes that she should be paid more by the council for the work she completes. Any recommendation in support of this submission will have the inevitable consequence of increasing costs for the Employer and as a result of the same, I accept the Employer’s submissions in this regard.

In the matter of A County Council -v- A Worker LCR22268, the Labour Court held that,

“It would be inappropriate for the Court to comment on the potential introduction of a job evaluation scheme for staff of the Claimant’s grade on the basis of the claim before it in the absence of any apparent discussion of this matter nationally. The Court also considers that it would be inappropriate to comment of the efficacy of ‘ad hoc’ job evaluation for staff of the Claimant’s grade wherever a claim arises.”

In this regard, I note that the authority above relates to a similar organisation to the present Employer. Having regard to the same, it would be inappropriate to make any recommendation in respect a job evaluation for the Worker’s role.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I recommend that the parties meet within twenty one days of the date below, to consider the Worker’s duties and any allowances, within the terms of her present contractual arrangement, that might be assigned to the Worker.

Job Evaluation, Cost Increasing