ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003046
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Driver Operative | Local Authority |
Representatives | Frank McDonnell Trade Unions | Keith Irvine, Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) |
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 - 00003046 | 27/08/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 14/11/2024
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).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker’s complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 27/08/2024. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 29/08/2024 and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within 21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.
I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.
The Worker attended the hearing, and he was represented by Mr Frank McDonnell, Trade Union. The Employer was represented by Mr Keith Irvine, LGMA, and two representatives from the Employer.
I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing to gain an understanding of the full extent of the issues giving rise to this dispute. At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed that they were satisfied that they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information.
Background:
The worker is employed by the employer since 03/03/2018. In April 2023 the post of weekend sweeper driver became available and the worker was placed in this position by the then acting supervisor. When the regular supervisor returned to work he removed the worker from this weekend role and gave it to a more junior colleague. The worker was reassigned to this role in September 2024. The worker is seeking to have his have is assignment confirmed as being permanent and is seeking compensation for the financial loss incurred following his removal. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker is employed by the employer since 03/03/2018. He is employed in a driving capacity and in April 2023 an employee who was responsible for driving the weekend sweeper left. The worker approached the acting line manager and indicated that he wished to take up that role in line with the long-established seniority list. This list was validated by HR after a previous dispute in relation to its application. The worker was given this role and he drove this sweeper on his weekend roster. He was later informed that there was an issue in relation to him taking up this role and he was asked by the acting line manager if this duty could be shared with a number of colleagues and to do so until the line manager returned from sick leave. The worker reluctantly agreed. When the line manager returned to work in September 2023 the worker had a meeting with him and was accompanied by his shop steward. He outlined his case but the line manager told him that it was being given to another colleague as he did not have to follow the seniority principle. The worker objected and he encountered difficulties with the trade union representation on the matter. A number of meetings were held but the issue remained unresolved. The worker contacted HR and was advised that his was an operational matter. He also made direct contact with a Director of Services to outline his concerns. He submitted his dispute to the WRC on 27/08/2024. Meanwhile the person who was appointed to this sweeper driver role was promoted and the worker who was appointed was promoted. The worker in this case had expressed an interest in taking up this role on a permanent basis. He was appointed in September 2023 on the basis of his seniority and a transfer request. The worker remains unsatisfied that his line manager did not provide any explanation for his removal from the role and he is also seeking that he receive written confirmation that he is appointed on a permanent basis to this role. The worker also believes that he is entitled to compensation for the financial loss incurred as he did not want to take up weekend overtime work after he was removed from the role in September 2023. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer made a number of preliminary points. Firstly there was an issue in relation to the name of the worker on the complaint form. Secondly the complaint form did not provide any specifics in relation to what the dispute was about and thirdly as the worker had not utilised internal processes. The employer accepts that there is a seniority process in place. However, the worker in this case had already been appointed to a litter driver on the basis of his seniority and therefore was not on the seniority list for the weekend sweeper role. In any event the worker has now been appointed to the weekend sweeper role on a transfer basis and the employer is agreeable to providing written confirmation that this transfer is on a permanent basis and will do so within one week of the hearing. The employer does not accept that the worker suffered any financial loss as a result of him losing the weekend overtime in the sweeper role. The same amount of overtime was available to the worker in his substantive role but he decided not to do this. The rate of overtime pay is exactly the same in the weekend litter driver role and the sweeper role but the worker decided, for his own reasons that he would not do the sweeper weekend overtime. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The worker has outlines three issues which are at the core of this dispute: 1. His removal from the weekend sweeper role without explanation 2. His desire to have his assignment to the sweeper role confirmed in writing so as to avoid the possibility of this being removed from him again 3. Compensation for his alleged loss of overtime due to his reluctance to attend in circumstances where he would be the recipient of some yard-based ribbing from colleagues about losing the role to a junior colleague.
The employer has articulated the rationale which led to the worker being moved from the temporary role. I understand that the worker may believe that other factors may have influenced the decision but these, however real or otherwise, are never going to be articulated or resolved to his satisfaction at this stage. As his permanent status is confirmed it is in his own interest to accept that a major part of his dispute has been resolved and move onwards. The worker has contributed significantly to his loss of overtime and under these circumstances, he cannot expect compensation. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute such as this one is to formulate a recommendation that will assist both parties to move forward. These are outlined below.
I am recommending:
- (a) that the employer issue the letter confirming the permanent transfer of the worker to the sweeper role
- (b) That the employer pays an ex-gratia payment of €500.00 to the worker due to the failure to adequately explain the rationale for removing him from the role.
Dated: 4th December 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Seniority principle. Loss of overtime. |