Traffic warden loses claim over 14% pay rise he did not agree with

A traffic warden who objected to getting a 14 per cent pay rise on “on principle” has been told he has no claim for an alleged rights breach.

The county council worker had accused his employer of changing his contract without his “consent” by implementing a Labour Court ruling on a dispute between his employer and traffic wardens represented by trade union Siptu.

“My pay rate was changed after a ballot of Siptu members took place at the end of last year. I had no vote on the issue as I am not a union member,” the worker wrote in a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The traffic warden’s workers rights claim was heard at the WRC in April this year alongside a broader industrial relations dispute between the parties.

More offices for fewer clients and sitting down with an Irish Brexiteer

---

‘Britain needs a shake up’: UK economist from a Kilburn Irish family on banks, business and Boris

---

‘Sustainability’ is a turn-off, so try selling a good life

---

Why don’t auditors find fraud?

---

The worker said the council was in breach of the Act because it had failed to provide him with “written notice” of the pay increase.

When he complained about the matter he was given a letter of undertaking to sign confirming “non-acceptance of the pay agreement”, which he refused to sign on legal advice, the worker told the tribunal.

The WRC noted the July 2019 Labour Court recommendation that traffic warden posts be brought into line with the pay scale for refuse collectors – amounting to a 14 per cent pay increase for traffic wardens nationwide, backdated to 2017.

The county council argued it was “implementing the decision of the [Labour] Court” by giving the pay increase and had provided the worker with a copy of the body’s decision in January 2022.

The council’s position was that it had “at all times complied with the requirement[s] of the Act”.

When the employer implemented the pay rise for the complainant, he sought that the increase be reversed “as he did not agree with it in principle”, adjudicating officer Peter O’Brien noted in his decision.

Mr O’Brien found that the respondent had “partially complied” with the Act, as it had not notified the complainant of the effective date of the contractual change within a month.

This was a copy of an Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union document dating to 1986 referring to a regrading of traffic warden pay scales by the Department of the Environment effective that year.

“This agreement only came into effect in November 2021 for the respondent due to the Labour Court decision. I consider this change by the Department of the Environment in 1986 to be a national ‘administrative provision’,” Mr O’Brien wrote.

The adjudicator wrote that it was also important that the traffic warden “was given the opportunity to reverse the increase”, but declined it.

“In effect then, he consented to the increase, which he declined. This gives the impression to the adjudicator that the complaint is one of ‘principle’ rather than a practical one,” Mr O’Brien added.

The contract stated that his position is “governed by national agreements” and the change was the result of a “national administrative provision”. Therefore, the county council was exempt from providing notice of changes in writing within a month.

“They were entitled to implement the change in pay without the written consent of the complainant and to not notify [him] within one month,” he added.

He rejected the complaint, but granted anonymity to the complainant in the matter, stating that he wanted to protect “sensitive personal information” in relation to the complainant in his recommendation on a parallel industrial relations dispute between the parties.