Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8732 Case Number: LCR11063 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - FWUI;FWUI;IMETU |
Claim on behalf of 714 firefighters in Dublin Fire Brigade for the payment of overtime.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that, having regard to the nature of the
service, overtime in excess of twenty minutes should be paid to
the claimants properly covered by this claim and that where
payment is due it should be calculated in respect of the total
overtime worked.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8732 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11063
CC861824 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11063
Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES' TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 714 firefighters in Dublin Fire Brigade for
the payment of overtime.
Background:
2. Twenty four hour cover is provided in the Fire Brigade seven
days a week throughout the year. Firefighters are organised into
four watches and each firefighter works 168 hours in a four week
roster which consists of seven days and seven nights. There are
two duty periods - the day period from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and the
night period from (9 hours) 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. (15 hours).
3. In January, 1986 the Unions, on behalf of the workers
concerned, served a claim on the Corporation for the payment of
overtime at the appropriate rate in respect of periods during
which these workers are detained on duty beyond the normal
finishing time of their respective shifts, and for which no such
payment is made at present. The Corporation rejected the claim
and as no agreement could be reached at local level, the matter
was referred, on 7th November, 1986, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference, held on
18th December, 1986, failed to resolve the dispute and the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 26th
February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Retention beyond normal finishing time is becoming a
problem of ever recurring frequency for the workers
concerned. For various reasons workers have to remain
on duty after normal finishing time and this applies in
particular to those on ambulance duty (details supplied
to the Court). In the case of station officers, there
is an additional element in that they cannot leave
their station until they are relieved. No arrangements
exist at present to provide for the reimbursement for
the additional time worked.
(ii) The Corporation states that an arrangement exists
whereby time off in lieu is granted for the periods
involved and that workers are given permission, in
exceptional circumstances, for up to two hours time off
to attend to urgent personal business. The Union
regards time off in such circumstances as a concession
which applies in any good employment, and is not an
arrangement, as such an arrangement could not
effectively exist, given the nature of the employment,
and is put forward by the Corporation to justify
non-payment of overtime. Such time off rarely occurs
and bears no relationship to the duration of the
periods during which workers are retained beyond
finishing time. If the concept of time off in lieu
were to have any value from a worker's point of view it
would have to be provided for at the end of his shift.
To do so would have the effect of exacerbating the
existing under-manning problems in the service and
would generate chaos.
(iii) In the two other Fire Brigades outside Dublin providing
the same full-time service, the problem is dealt with
by means of the application of overtime at the
appropriate rates.
(iv) The Corporation has acknowledged the principle of
overtime in the past where certain events arose which
involved the availability of Fire Brigade personnel
(details supplied to the Court).
(v) The workers concerned have an established relationship
with the Garda Siochana, in respect of pay and
allowances. In the case of the Garda Siochana, an
agreed arrangement exists which provides for the
payment of overtime in situations of the nature upon
which this claim is based.
(vi) The only effective mechanism for dealing with the
problem without creating further operational
difficulties is through the application of overtime at
the appropriate rates.
Corporation's arguments:
5. (a) The fire service is a 24-hour emergency service.
Consequently, it must be accepted that much greater
flexibility with regard to the finishing time of duty
periods is required than applies to the generality of
other services in the Corporation. That flexibility
has long been accepted in the Fire Brigade without
payment of overtime. Nothing has happened in recent
times which would justify a change in the long
established practice.
(b) Firefighters are compensated for any additional time on
duty by the grant of time off in lieu. This form of
compensation is considered to be adequate.
(c) Because of the nature of the fire service, Fire Brigade
personnel are treated more favourably in the matter of
time off during working hours than other Corporation
staff. There is provision, with the approval of the
District Officer (or in his absence, the Station
Officer) on duty, to grant permission, in exceptional
circumstances, to leave the fire station for periods
not exceeding two hours to attend to personal business.
An absence of more than two hours may be approved by a
more senior officer than District Officer. This time
off is given with pay unlike the practice generally in
the Corporation where leave without pay is granted in
such circumstances. Regard should be had to this
generous additional benefit to Fire Brigade personnel
when considering the question of the payment of
overtime in the circumstances in which it is now
claimed.
(d) The introduction of paid overtime at this stage for
such highly paid staff as Fire Brigade personnel when
the Corporation is striving to minimise overtime
generally and to preserve employment levels would be a
retrograde step.
(e) In recent years, which has been a period of severe
financial constraint, a disproportionate amount of
Corporation resources have had to be allocated to the
Fire Service (details of increases in expenditure and
staffing levels in the Fire Service since 1981 supplied
to the Court). This expansion has taken place while
the Corporation and local authorities generally have
been exercising restraint in their various spending
areas. In apportioning scarce resources the
Corporation must give priority to retaining the
existing workforce, meeting statutory demands and
maintaining the various essential services at a
satisfactory standard. Payment of overtime to
firefighters could not be justified in the current
financial climate.
(f) Fire Brigade personnel are adequately compensated for
the occasions when they are required to be retained
beyond their normal finishing time. Therefore, the
claim for the payment of overtime when such occasions
arise must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that, having regard to the nature of the