Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Operative

A County Council

Representatives

Victoria Stephens 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 - 00002090

05/01/2024

The Worker was employed as an Environmental Patrol Warden and is now employed as a Permanent Traveller Liaison Officer. He submitted 5 personal disputes, most of which were of a long standing historical nature, seeking a recommendation on each.

The Worker commenced his full-time employment as an Environmental Patrol Warden for the Respondent on Thursday, 01 June 2000. 

The Respondent heard the Complainant’s grievance and held it to be unfounded.

The Worker now seeks redress and to have his grievance matter considered by an unbiased Adjudicator regarding the following matters raised and refused:

a)      Extended working area of X Municipal District.

b)     Restoration of Uniform.

c)      Restoration of Uniform dry cleaning.

d)     Job Title.

e)     Collective Agreement between Y County Council and Environmental Wardens for away from base allowance in 2003, The Worker has  never received it despite been part of the agreement. Perhaps it has been an oversight but these needs resolving.

It is uncontested that the Worker has been employed with the Council since Tuesday, 28 September 1999 with X Urban District Council.  The Worker executed his contract of employment as an Environmental Patrol Warden, of which included to act as a Litter Patrol Warden among other duties on Thursday, 01 June 2000 which states at the top of page 1 of said contract that the Worker works for Y County Council. The Respondent relies on abolition of the Town Councils in 2014 and the Local Government Reform Act 2014, Section 19, Part 3A, or Chapter 1 of this Act of which amends the Principal Act relating to Municipal districts, Chapter 2, from Section 23, the Dissolution of Town Councils and Section 26 relating to the consequential provisions on dissolution of certain bodies to argue that the Worker was employed by the X Municipal District Council and not the Y County Council at the time that the collective agreement was concluded in 2009.

The Respondent has alleged that the Worker only transferred to the Environment Section of Y County Council on Friday, 09 May 2014. However, there is nothing to support this.

The Worker relies on his contract of employment dated the Thursday, 01 June 2000 that he has been performing his duties as contained in his contract of employment since date of commencement.

The Worker  believes that the Respondent introduced the contract of employment dated the Thursday, 01 June 2000 in accordance with Section 11 of the Planning and Development Act 2000:

 “11.—(1) Not later than 4 years after the making of a development plan, a planning authority shall give notice of its intention to review its existing development plan and to prepare a new development plan for its area.”

The Worker transferred from an Environmental Patrol Warden to a Permanent Traveller Liaison Officer on Tuesday, 19 November 2024. 

On or around the 27 May 2020, the Worker wrote to the Executive Engineer of the Physical Development (Environment), Y County Council to lodge his formal grievance. In line with the WRC

Recommendation CA-00027514-001 to raise his formal grievance procedure to resolve the following issues: Extended working area of X municipal district; Restoration of uniform; Restoration of uniform dry cleaning; Job title and the Collective agreement between Y County Council and environmental wardens for away from base allowance in 2003 as he never received same despite being a part of the agreement.  

On or around the 20 January 2023,  the Senior Executive Officer (SEO) acting on behalf of the Respondent completed the Investigation process in issuing her appeal of examination of the Complainant’s grievance and upheld the findings of her predecessors.  

The Worker is able to provide correspondence to show discussions regarding where to get uniforms in 2017. The Worker also provides a photograph of he and colleagues in uniform.

Adjudicator, we ask you now to consider why the Worker was denied, in particular the restoration of uniform; restoration of uniform dry cleaning; the Complainant’s job title and the Collective agreement between Y County Council and environmental wardens for away from base allowance in 2003, of which, he never received same despite being a part of the agreement. 

In reviewing the documents as provided throughout the grievance process, we say that the Respondent failed in its’ duty to the Worker, and denied him what he was entitled to have, or at the very least proper explanation as to why he would not be entitled to same.

We ask you to consider the fairness throughout and should you deem it appropriate to award the Worker for his losses.

Adjudicator this submission is made on behalf of Y County Council (herein referred to as “the Council”) in respect of a complaint by the Worker”) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The complaint was submitted to the WRC on 5th January 2024. The complaint is stated as: 

“I wish to have my grievance matter considered by an unbiased Adjudicator regarding the following matters raised and refused: 

1.  Extended working area of X Municipal District. 

2.  Restoration of Uniform. 

3.  Restoration of Uniform dry cleaning. 

4.  Job Title. 

5.  Collective Agreement between Y County Council and Environmental Wardens for away from base allowance in 2003, I have never received it despite been part of the agreement. Perhaps it has been an oversight but these needs resolving. 

I have exhausted my grievance internally.”

The Worker has been employed with the Council since 28th September 1999 as a Litter Warden with X Urban District Council and was subsequently appointed to the position of Environmental Patrol Warden on the 1st June 2000 . On abolition of the Town Councils in 2014, The Worker transferred to the Environment section of Y County Council on the 9th May 2014.

On the 21st June 2021, he was appointed Acting Traveller Liaison Officer until he secured a permanent post in this role on the 19th November 2024 .

 SIPTU, on behalf of the Worker, lodged a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on the 4th April 2019 advising that his dispute related to ‘unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment’. The Adjudication Officer issued his decision on the 25th November 2019. The Adjudication Officer advised that the dispute relates to whether the worker was employed by a named Urban District Council or a named County Council at the time a Collective Agreement was concluded in 2009 and that he had agreed this with both parties and recommended any issues he may have are dealt with through local grievance procedures, with any outstanding issues referred to the WRC if required.

In accordance with this decision, the Worker’s line manager proceeded to deal with all issues raised through the Council’s Grievance procedure (informal process). 

In May 2020, the Worker set out his issues as follows:

Extended working area of X Municipal District

Restoration of uniform

Restoration of uniform dry cleaning

Job title

Collective agreement between Y County Council and environmental wardens for away from base allowance in 2003, I have never received it despite been part of the agreement. Perhaps it has been an oversight but this needs resolving.

His Line Manager responded on the 30th July 2020  stating:

1.    Your work area is X Municipal District.

2.    Your contract states that you will be required to wear a uniform as distinct from a uniform will be provided. If this is introduced, I will discuss same with you.

3.    The provision of a Uniform Dry Cleaning Allowance is not stated in your contract of 30/5/2000.

4.    As per your contract of employment your job title is Environmental Patrol Warden.

5.    Can you clarify your involvement in this Agreement. A solicitor, on behalf of the Worker, engaged with the Council between August 2020 and March 2021 and then advised that as the matter remained within the Council’s grievance procedure, he would step back.

On the 26th March 2021, The Worker then invoked section 12.2 of the Grievance Policy and Procedure and initiated a formal process in line with the policy and requested that his issues be resolved.

A formal examination of the issues was undertaken by the next line manager). He issued his report on the 16th June 2022 . The findings were not in favour of the worker. The Worker lodged an appeal on the 27th June 2022.

The appeal was heard on the 19th October 2022 and  his report on the 14th November 2022. In his report, the Appeal Officer upheld the findings of the initial investigation Offier  on issues 1 and 4. With regard to issues 2 and 3, he recommended that the decision of the 5th November 2018 to withdraw the provision of work uniform to Environmental Patrol Wardens be reviewed by the relevant line manager and that dry cleaning costs also be reviewed. With regard to issue 5, he recommended that HR provide clarification regarding applying for a subsistence allowance.

Human Resources wrote to The Worker on the 20th January 2023  and advised that management in the Environment section have confirmed that the corporate branded PPE which is supplied for the role is sufficient and therefore a uniform dry cleaning allowance is not relevant. The Worker was also advised that the subsistence allowance was not applicable to the role of Environmental Patrol Warden in the X Municipal District.

The Worker has raised 5 issues around his employment as an Environmental Patrol Warden. Each of the issues have been examined through the Council’s Grievance Procedure, although not to the satisfaction of the Worker.

With regard to the extended working area, it is a matter of fact that Town Councils were abolished in 2014 and effectively replaced by Municipal Districts and this resulted in the reconfiguration of areas where staff were allocated to work. The Public Service Agreements require the public service workforce to be agile and flexible. In that regard, the fact that The Worker was requested to adapt to a boundary change as a result of change in legislation was a realistic expectation of management. 

With regard to the uniform, it is a matter of fact that Environmental Patrol Wardens are not required to wear a uniform, given the nature of the role which is mainly performed on public roads and public pathways. Personal Protective Equipment is provided and is adequate for this role. 

With regard to uniform dry cleaning, given that a uniform is not required, an allowance for dry cleaning is not relevant.

With regard to job title, it is a matter of fact that The Worker was employed as an Environmental Patrol Warden as per the contract which he signed on the 30th May

2000. He was never employed as a General Services Supervisor. The role of Environmental Patrol Warden is analogous to the role of General Services Supervisor for pay purposes only.

With regard to the away from base allowance, it is a matter of fact that the agreement referred to was ringfenced to 3 staff at that time. It is also the case that The Worker does not meet the conditions of the subsistence policy i.e. a distance greater than 8km from home or base, 5 hours etc             

The Council asked to dismiss the complaint where the Worker’s grievance has been heard and not found in his favour. It is also a matter of fact that the Worker has taken up a new position as Traveller Liaison Officer in June 2021 on an Acting basis until permanently being appointed in 2024 rendering his complaints retrospective in nature and not

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  In summary, I found little to support the Workers arguments and the complaints appear to bare the hallmarks of a long standing historical and personal grievance the Worker has rather than any substantial industrial relations dispute. The Worker was informed he did not need a uniform for his new role yet he continued to use it and have it dry cleaned at an estimated cost of 2,000 Euros over a two year period. The Worker sought compensation for this and this claim has no justification. The Worker is not required to wear a uniform in his current role. The Workers claim for mileage also has no merit and goes back over 10 years and the agreement he seeks to benefit from was ring fenced to 3 staff which did not include the Worker. The Worker did not show any grounds that he was covered by the Agreement. This claim has no merit. I don’t see the relevance of the issue of the Workers Job Title since he moved into his new role and job title. This portion of the claim has no merit. The Workers employer is defined as the Municipal Area and I see no rationale or logic for this portion of the dispute. Overall, I believe the Worker has clinged to long standing minor personal grievances and would be best to move on and consider them concluded.

I see no merit in the grievances and find in favour of the Employer.

Trade Dispute