Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Litter Warden

A Local Authority

Representatives

Colleen Minihane SIPTU

 In-House HR Department

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 - 00003566

16/12/2024

 The Worker is employed by  a local authority in the  Cleansing Section. In 2023, he undertook two temporary “acting-up” roles — first as Acting Cleansing Assistant General Foreperson, and subsequently as Acting Lead Litter Warden (Junior Foreperson). Both acting-up appointments came to an end, and the Worker was returned to his substantive position as Litter Warden on 15 November 2023.

The Worker, through his trade union, referred this dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts, alleging that the termination of his acting-up roles was unfair and that the Employer unduly delayed the processing of his grievance regarding these matters.

The Employer contended that the acting-up appointments were temporary, subject to performance review, and that the Worker was not performing to the required supervisory standard. The Employer further argued that the format of what purported to be a grievance did not comply with its own procedures.

The Worker stated that he had carried out his duties diligently during both acting-up assignments and that he was not informed of any specific performance standards or shortcomings prior to his reversion to the substantive grade.

He said that he had received no formal performance appraisals or written feedback, and that any discussions with management were informal and undocumented. He maintained that other staff in similar circumstances were treated more leniently and that the decision to end his acting-up arrangements was arbitrary and unfair.

The Worker accepted that he had asked to be released from the first acting-up assignment but explained that this was due to a lack of support and resources, not an admission of poor performance.

He further submitted that the grievance process which followed was unreasonably prolonged, causing frustration and unnecessary stress. The delay, in his view, reflected poor procedural management and disregard for fair process.

The Worker sought compensation for the way the matter had been handled and for the delay in resolving his grievance.

The following authorities were referred to in the Worker’s submission: A Worker v Kerry County Council (LCR 22354), A Worker v Galway City Council (ADJ-00030425), A Worker v A Local Authority (ADJ-00020118). The Worker relied on these authorities to argue that the Employer had failed to adhere to the same standards of procedural fairness, particularly by not providing written reviews or timely communication before ending his acting-up roles, and by allowing his grievance to drift unresolved for an extended period.

The Employer submitted that acting-up assignments are temporary by nature, governed by long-established local arrangements. They are made to ensure continuity of service and are subject to ongoing review of the appointee’s suitability and performance.

It was stated that during both acting-up periods, performance difficulties arose. The Cleansing General Foreperson held several discussions with the Worker about issues such as supervisory oversight, work allocation, and communication with staff.

In relation to the first acting-up role, the Employer noted that the Worker himself requested to be released from the position, acknowledging that the role was demanding.

The Employer further contended that when the Worker took up the second acting-up post, similar performance issues persisted, and despite opportunities to improve, performance did not reach the standard expected of a supervisory role. Consequently, the acting arrangement was ended, and the Worker reverted to his substantive post.

The Employer maintained that the decision was not disciplinary and did not reflect negatively on the Worker’s character or diligence but was a legitimate management decision made in the interests of service delivery.

In relation to the grievance, the Employer acknowledged that the process took longer than ideal but denied any deliberate delay or bad faith.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I accept that acting-up arrangements are temporary, performance-based, and do not carry an entitlement to continued appointment. It is well established that management has discretion to review and end such arrangements where the required standard of performance is not met.

In this case, the evidence supports the Employer’s position that the Worker experienced difficulties in the supervisory aspects of the role and that he had, on one occasion, asked to be released. On that basis, the Employer was entitled to revert him to his substantive grade.

I am also satisfied that the Worker is a hard-working and conscientious employee, but the higher supervisory responsibilities required skills and oversight that were not fully achieved in this instance.

However, the Employer was on full notice of a grievance when it was submitted on the Worker’s behalf by his trade union, but the handling of the Worker’s grievance was unacceptably prolonged. The delay went beyond what would be regarded as normal and reasonable in a structured local authority context. This caused unnecessary uncertainty and frustration for the Worker and represents a lapse in good industrial relations practice.

Grievance Procedure. Industrial Relations Act 1969.