Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Local Authority

Representatives

Con Casey SIPTU

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

CA-00045114

09/07/2021

The Employee was accompanied by SIPTU with the Employer appearing with its local authority representatives.

It is the Employee’s claim that there is a trade dispute as to his entitlement to work carry out a dual role and in particular the dispute arises of what is considered to be on call in the context of Water Services.

Both parties agreed that the internal grievance procedure had been exhausted.

The Employee commenced employment with the Local Authority since 23 June 2011. In the same period, he was successful in obtaining a position as a retained Fire Fighter in his local Brigade. In 2016, he placed first on a panel for the position of Waterworks Caretaker in the same local area.  As a condition of the role, he was advised that he would no longer be allowed to continue as a Fire Fighter as these roles both required him to be on call. The Employee spoke to various senior managers in the Local Authority and advised that there were others who held similar roles including the Station Officer in his local Brigade. The Employee, at this time, felt compelled to resign his role as a Fire Fighter in order to take up his position as Waterworks Caretaker.

In August 2019, the Employee reapplied for a position with the Fire Service and was placed first in the panel. He received a letter prior to commencement of training stating he would not be allowed to hold both roles simultaneously. Clarification was sought by the Employee but not was provided by the Employer. The Employee proceeded with the training but upon completion he was not presented with a position. The Director of Services spoke with the Employee and explained the position that there was a policy in place for a number of years preventing this. Exchanges between the parties continued with the Employee requesting a copy of this policy. It was put forward by the Employee that no policy presented. The Employee sought to resolve this matter through the internal grievance procedure but was unsuccessful. The Employee presented comparator Employees who held dual positions with that of a Retained Fire Fighter within the Local Authority.

It was the Employer’s case that due to the position of Waterworks Caretaker held by the Employee it is simply not possible to carry out two on call demanding jobs due to the critical and time sensitive nature of both. The Employee in question is the only individual responsible for his area (town) with one other employee responsible for the hinterland. With the introduction of new water service system, which was accepted ran more efficiently, there was greater responsibilities on the role of Caretaker. In summary, the Employer stated that there was a potential for a conflict of interest for the Employee where there was an emergency call out to both roles at the same time. There has been no further approvals for dual employment in the Fire Services and Water Services with the roles detailed as comparators as being distinguishable due to the fact their roles allow for their release to attend Fire Service callouts.

There is no doubt that the Employee can only be commended where he is so willing to dedicate himself to the service of the community to two vital services. Unfortunately, this is the issue, both services, by their nature, require emergency call outs. While proposals were put forward by the Employee as to how he could continue in the dual role, all of which have been carefully considered, the reality is the role of a Waterworks Caretaker in a town which swells with tourists during a lengthy season does require on call to attend to emergency and potential incidents of public health. The option of seasonal retention with the Fire Service is unfortunately not an option either.

The other important factor in this case is that at all times from the outset of his employment in 2016 as a Waterworks Caretaker, he was made aware of the impossibility of holding a dual role with the Fire Services. Therefore, at all times he was on full notice of this limitation of the role.

It is accepted that there was no clear policy in place but this of itself is not sufficient a reason as to why the dual role arrangement simply cannot work.

Industrial Relations Act