Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Firefighter

A Local Authority

Representatives

Barnaba Dorda SIPTU

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 - 00001374

08/05/2023

The Worker is a firefighter assigned to a central city fire station.

On the 25th of September 2022 the Worker volunteered for overtime.

Upon arrival at his station the Worker was told he had been reassigned for the day and was being required to attend a station on the other side of the city centre.

The Worker refused and went home. He is seeking to be compensated for the loss of the overtime.

The Worker agreed to do overtime in his station.

Where there is a staffing issue and a member of staff needs to be moved around the most junior firefighter would normally get sent to the other station. There was someone more junior present on that day.

When the Worker arrived to the station he was asked by the Station Officer to go to the other station.  The Worker pointed out that he was not the most junior person on the job that day but was told that the Mobilisation officer had made a decision based on an operational need.

However, there was no such operation need and the more junior firefighter should have gone.

The Worker was instructed to go home if he refused to go to the other station. As such the Worker left.

He was ready and available to work but was told to go elsewhere. He should not have been.

Following this incident the Worker raised a grievance. 

In this process he was told there was a need to move a driver however the records show that there were four trucks and seven drivers in the other station. They didn’t need a driver.  

The Employer could not provide evidence as to why this relocation was necessary and while they interviewed the mobilisation officer they did not provide the notes.

The Worker’s Union believes the mobilisation officer determination of operation needs must be subject to verification.

The Employer does not accept that there is an established custom and practice that the most junior firefighter must be redeployed where redeployments need to take place on any given shift.

Staffing is determined on the need of the brigade not individual stations.

Role of the mobilisation officer is paramount in coordinating a large emergency service. It is , dynamic process and they need to have discretion in order to fulfil their role.

Ultimately, it’s a management function to manage overtime and staff can be transferred from station to station as needed,

The Worker decided he would rather go home rather than go to work in the other station.  

He had the opportunity to work the overtime then challenge the decision later. Ultimately he was only disadvantaged by himself.

An additional firefighter had to be brought in for that day because the Worker didn’t work.

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

I disagree entirely with the Union position. The role of the mobilisation officer for a major emergency service obviously requires a degree of discretion and their day to day decisions do not need to be subject to verification or agreement by the Union.

There may be scenarios where a mobilisation officer does abuse their authority or acts obviously unreasonably and could be subject to review. However, this dispute is clearly nowhere near that type of situation.

The Worker volunteered for overtime. He was directed, while on the clock, to drive to a nearby station on a Saturday morning and carry out the rest of his shift there. I note he took offence this and believes a more junior person should have been made go instead. While his upset appears to be genuine it does not entitle him to refuse reasonable instructions given by management.

The Worker did not work the overtime. In the circumstances, I cannot see why he should be compensated for overtime he did not work.