Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

County Council

Representatives

Ger Malone SIPTU

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 - 00001220

08/11/2021

The worker is located at a relatively smaller treatment plant. He had previously been assigned to larger plants where he had competently carried out cover. He seeks an upgrade to a higher grade. The matter has been before the Adjudicator previously. Having regard to the company/union agreement and the facts of the case that first recommendation found that:

1.       The scale and volume of the plant is a key factor in determining whether a role should be reclassified to a higher grade. The worker based on the facts particularly in the context of the volume difference between his and a comparator is properly graded; albeit he can perform the duties of the higher grade.

2.       The existing agreement provides for a role to be upgraded where additional duties if feasible could be assigned so that the role is expanded.

3.       The parties were recommended to explore how the role could be expanded having regard to the existing agreement.

That process has failed to resolve the dispute.

The matter was referred back for a recommendation.

The parties’ final written submissions and a possible way forward were finalised in mid-December 2022.

The worker is willing to take on additional duties so that his role is expanded. There is no question about his technical ability to work at the higher-grade competencies and skills. His current plant is a modern and automated plant that requires a high skill level. The employer refuses to upgrade his role because the plant is much smaller than comparable plants where the role is recognised at the higher grade. Those other plants while bigger do not operate to the volumes detailed in the circulars and criteria envisaged. The agreement does allow for additional tasks to be assigned to him which is a fair way to ensure equity.

The employer does not see a solution to this dispute and has carefully considered the workers proposals. A concern currently relates to the fact that the treatment plant is moving under the control of Irish Water. Also, the upgrade while feasible under the agreement would create another more complex problem. There are nine other employees on the same grade and to promote outside of a competition would be unfair. There are also practical considerations about the ability to reassign the worker to another plant to provide cover and at the same time ensure that his plant is fully covered. For these reasons the Council cannot find a solution to this dispute.

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

The agreement does provide for an expansion of duties so that a promotion is justified.

The plant is now transitioning to being under the control of Irish Water.

There are nine other operatives on the same grade.

Section 13 of the Act states:

13.— (1)

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

The facts are the employer does not consider there are extra duties that can be assigned that make sense. The employee is well regarded and competent; however, there is a marked difference in his plant and the comparators even if the volumes are not as originally as envisaged. While the existing employer union agreement does provide for an individual’s role to be upgraded there is a concern that outside of a competition that would be unfair and create another more complex employee relations issue. There is also the very significant change where the treatment plant moves to  Irish Water as the managing agent.

In these circumstances it is not appropriate to make a recommendation that could give rise to a knock-on claim for 9 other workers. I am also mindful that the new controlling agent of the plant has not been a party to these discussions. In these circumstances I do not find for the worker and therefore recommend that the claim is not conceded to.

Job Evaluation -Upgrade