Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Local Authority

Representatives

Jay Power SIPTU

Tomas Redmond

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 - 00001155

09/03/2023

The Worker is employed by the Respondent’s Waste Management Department.

This dispute concerns the worker acting up as a supervisor on a relief basis, that is covering absences of full-time supervisors.

The inspector overseeing the depot where the Worker had frequently appointed him as relief supervisor under that Inspector’s discretion in 2021.

In 2022 the Co-Ordinating Officer, senior to the Inspector, held a local competition and the Worker was one of three appointed to that panel. The instances of him getting relief supervisors dropped drastically in favour of a person appointed higher on the panel than he was.

This resulted in a loss to the Worker.

The Worker’s Union argues that this dispute relates to an understanding as to what is fair or not.

The Worker had the expectation that he would get acting up opportunities. in absence of a panel.

The Inspector had the discretion to grant him this and made that decision. However, the Coordinator overruled him.

This was unfair and resulted in a financial loss. It also impacted on the Worker’s ability to apply for promotion. 

The Local Authority submits that it was entirely fair to the Worker at all times.

The Co-ordinator overseeing the Depot decided to put in place a panel so that acting up opportunities could be issued on a transparent and fair basis.

The Worker applied for this panel. He was successful at but at a lower rank than two others. The Worker continued to get acting up days but less frequently.

The Local Authority points out that the Worker only got acting up positions, outside the operation of the panel, over a short period of time from Feb 2021 until September 2021.

When the panel was put in place the other workers on the panel actually agreed to share the acting up opportunities with the Worker out of a sense of fairness.

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

The Worker’s case appears to be that the Local Authority had discretion in this matter but after a point used their discretion in a way that didn’t suit him.

For a period of months he seems to have had almost exclusive right to the acting up opportunities. This was determined by the Inspector overseeing him. The Worker does not point to any reason why the Local Authority was bound to continue on with this arrangement, other than the fact that he benefitted as a result of it.

The panel instituted subsequently seems sensible as it obviously removes any concerns regarding favouritism and other potential disputes. But in any event, absent a policy, industrial agreement or properly established custom and practice it is up to the Local Authority to determine how to fill day to day acting up cover.