LCR23153

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint 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 17 April 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 04 June 2025.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

• The Union is of the position that the role of the two workers has experienced considerable and demonstratable change.
• Notwithstanding the remuneration of the original position, when considering the specifications and responsibilities of the role, the Council has benefited from services of the workers without appropriate of reciprocal remuneration, and in these circumstances the role should be re-graded.
• SIPTU maintain that an independent job-evaluation is therefore required.
  
  

EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:

• The Council are of the position that this Claim is contrary to the provisions of the Public Service Agreement, as it is a cost increasing claim.

The Council note that should the Workers be identified as undertaking duties of a higher grade, the Council will remove these duties from the concerned workers.

RECOMMENDATION:

This claim relates to two Community Wardens represented by SIPTU, who are seeking to be regraded from the role of Community Warden to Social Inclusion Development Officers (SIDO) as they believe they are carrying out the duties of the SIDO grade.  Community warden is a national grade and there are other Community Wardens in Cork City Council, but the claim is only in respect of these two workers. It was confirmed during the hearing that one of the Workers is currently assigned to a temporary SIDO post.  The Union are seeking that a job evaluation be carried out of their roles.

The Employer submitted that as part of local discussions they had sought information from both the Workers in relation to the roles they were carrying out. The Employer then carried out a comparative study of the roles they were carrying out and the role of the SIDO. They drafted up a detailed response and issued that to the Union.  Having completed this process the Council view is that there is no alignment between the role of the Community Wardens covered by this claim, and the SIDO. This was set out in the Employer’s letter of 22 February 2022 to the Union, which attached a copy of the review.  While a meeting took place to discuss the Employers letter and review document, the Union never submitted a written response to the document that the Employer was relying on or raised any issues about the factual content of same.

 Management stated that there is no agreed job evaluation scheme in the sector for this cohort of workers and therefore it is not possible to carry out a job evaluation. The Union submitted that there are discussions around a job evaluation scheme for administrative grades and that scheme could be applied. They accepted that for pay purposes this grade was linked to general operatives and not the administrative stream. The Employer stated that the Community Warden grade is not encompassed by that scheme.

The Court having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the oral submissions made on the day can see no basis for recommending concession of the Unions claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AM	______________________
25 June 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.