LCR23306

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission.

As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 18 November 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 July 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court is a joint referral by the parties in a dispute about the qualifications required for the role of Health and Safety Officer employed by the Council. The matter was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission.

The dispute centres around a recruitment campaign conducted by the Council for the position of Executive Health and Safety Officer. The Council ran an initial competition citing certain higher qualifications and were unsuccessful in establishing a panel to fill the role. The role was readvertised with alternative recognised qualifications in the candidate information booklet.

Summary of Union Arguments

The Union contends that the Council has breached the Environment, Heritage and Local Government Circular 05/10 when they advertised the role and did not require candidates to hold an honours degree in Health and Safety or equivalent (Engineering, Architecture, and/or Science) with a diploma in Health and Safety.

The Council’s actions have created a grading and responsibility anomaly. The erosion of the standard of qualifications required undermines the professional status of the position. Three members are concerned that a two-tiered situation now exists where staff appointed to the same grade have different qualifications.  This contributes to an inequitable distribution of responsibilities within the section.

The Union requests that the Council restore the previous eligibility criteria set down by the Minister. under the Local Government Act 2001.  

Summary of Employer Arguments

The Council contends that there is no basis to the Union’s objections, as the dispute arises from an incorrect belief on the part of the Union that the declared qualifications for Health and Safety Officer are applicable to the role of Executive Health and Safety Officer in Dublin.

Declared qualifications for the role of Senior Executive Health and Safety Officer in Local Authorities were published in 2010. This remains unchanged. The relevant Circular Letter separately refers to Assistant Health and Safety Officers, which are grade 6 analogous.

The Council takes its responsibility as an employer under the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act with the utmost seriousness and recognises that professional qualifications are required to carry out the role of Executive Health and Safety Officer. Pathways to education in Occupational Health and Safety have evolved since 2010 and what was considered the only pathway to becoming professionally competent at that time has changed. Due to the critical nature of the role the decision was taken to advertise the role with the alternative recognised qualifications with revised qualifications captured in the candidate information booklet.

The Council requests that the Court finds it acted appropriately in respect of the recruitment of candidates to the role of Executive Health and Safety Officer.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties.

The parties confirmed that the dispute is not about a breach of any collective agreement. Despite the concern of Union members that the Council's actions will lead to a two-tier system and the inequitable distribution of responsibilities, the parties confirmed no such issues have arisen.

The crux of the issue before the Court relates to the interpretation of a Circular from 2010, which the Union contends specifies the qualification required for the role of Executive Health and Safety Officer.  The Council disputes that interpretation.

The Court is concerned that it is being asked, in this case, to interpret a national circular that may have wider implications. Neither party have taken the opportunity to clarify their respective interpretations with the author of the Circular.

As such, in the absence of such clarification, the Court is of the view that it cannot provide assistance to the parties.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
21/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary