ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002533

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Parties	Employee	Employer

Representatives

Barnaba Dorda SIPTU

Dispute(s):

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 - 00002533	23/04/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton

Date of Hearing: 02/08/2024

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).

Background:

The worker perceives an unfairness regarding the interpretation of what amounts to 3 years satisfactory experience as a Station Officer required to be eligible to be considered for the promotional grade of District Officer. He states when his acting up and intermittent service is included, he meets the 3 years’ service requirement. The Council do not and have not included intermitted service and short-term acting up periods when assessing if a candidate meets the 3 years satisfactory experience as a Station Officer. He has not been treated less favourably than any other colleague.

The Union representative also referred to a practice in the Civil Service where intermitted service is included when calculating the service requirement.

The Employer stated that even if intermittent service was included the worker would not have the 3 years satisfactory experience.

PRELIMINARY MATTER:

23 candidates applied for the role and 11 were deemed to be successful. The candidate wishes to be placed on a point on the new scale below where panel members successful have been or will be placed. He argues that other than the narrow service requirement he would have been placed on the panel. The issue arises regarding the other applicants and how changing or reinterpreting the satisfactory service requirement would affect others.

On the facts the Council has applied the service criteria consistently and what the worker now seeks is a different service criterion. That is not a condition that should be recommended to change unless it was entirely unreasonable. That is not the case in this instance.

A more important consideration is whether the WRC has jurisdiction to hear the referral pursuant to section 13 of the Act. The fact that 23 candidates applied, and a shortlist was drawn up consisting of 11 successfully candidates raises a jurisdictional issue. If this Tribunal recommended that a new criterion should be applied this must mean that the individual trade dispute before this Adjudicator would be connected to with rates of pay, or hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of a body of workers. It is not possible to consider such a change in isolation. The worker seeks to be placed on the promotional grade at the first point. That cannot be made without a consequence for other candidates. The relevant section is:

13.

(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.

I have determined that this dispute is in fact connected to the rate of pay of a body of workers and decline jurisdiction.

Summary of Workers Case:

See background and preliminary matter

Summary of Employer’s Case:

See background and preliminary matter.

Conclusions:

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

23 candidates applied for the position. The same criteria were applied to all. The Council has consistently applied the service requirement and the worker was treated no less favourably to others. In these circumstances to change the service criterion would in fact affect a body of workers as 11 candidates were appointed based on the criteria and 12 were not. Pursuant to section 13 of the Act I decline jurisdiction.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.