LCR23250

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037314 (CA-00048961-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Workerappealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 22April 2025

in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 28 March 2025 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“The Complainant’s request for compensation and/or a bonus scheme or that he his grading be changed to that of building inspector is refused.

The maximum number of sites the Complainant is to be responsible for is to be capped at 61. Any additional sites that come on stream are to be looked after by an alternative individual."

A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 April 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Appeal

This is an appeal by the Worker from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00037314, dated 28 March 2025) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 22 April 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Wexford on 29 April 2026.

The Factual Background

The Worker has been employed by Wexford County Council (‘the Council’) for over 30 years in a number of roles. He has been employed as a Technical Supervisor Playground/Surrounding Site since November 2015.

The within dispute dates to October 2019 when the Council sought to engage with the Worker in relation to a proposed revision to his job description and associated duties. The proposed changes arose from the increase in the number of playgrounds and relevant recreational facilities provided by the Council. The Worker has been on long-term certified sick leave pending resolution of the dispute. His originating complaint was referred to Workplace Relations Commission on 17 February 2022. The Adjudication Officer made very comprehensive recommendations in relation to the Worker’s duties and his written job description. The Council have accepted the Recommendation in full.

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that he had responsibility for 42 playgrounds when he commenced in his current role and that the Council is now proposing to increase his remit to cover 63 playgrounds. His representative submits that it is not possible for one person to cover that number of facilities single-handedly in a thirty-nine-hour week. This, he told the Court is evident from the fact that his work has been covered by up to four colleagues in his absence. The Worker further complains that he is being asked to accept a substantial increase in workload “without any remuneration incentive or upward regrading”.

The Council’s Submission

It is accepted by the Council that the number of playgrounds it provides has increased and that it continues to develop additional amenities for the population of County Wexford. It submits, however, that it has been at pains to make clear to the Worker that he is only expected to work his contractual thirty-nine-hour week and that it would address any difficulties experienced by the Worker, should they arise as a consequence of the increase in the number of facilities he is required to inspect.

The Council submits that the Worker’s expanded duties have been fulfilled by one single colleague working over four days in the Worker’s absence.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Council accepts in full the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation as being “fair and reasonable” to both Parties. The Council submits that the Worker’s claim for additional remuneration/regrading is without merit.

Discussion and Decision

Having carefully considered the Parties’ submissions, the Court finds that there is no basis for varying the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer which is, therefore, upheld. Furthermore, the Court finds that the Worker’s contract of employment includes a provision that requires flexibility of him in his role as Technical Supervisor Playground/Surrounding Site and that the increase in the number of sites he is being asked to inspect is fully encompassed by that flexibility provision. The Court accepts fully the Council’s submission that the expanded role is being fulfilled by one colleague over four days. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Worker’s claim for increased remuneration/regrading is also without merit.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
CC	______________________
11/05/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.