Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88151 Case Number: LCR11807 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim that service as a trainee fireman should be taken into account for the purpose of applying the long service increment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, noting that the sole basis for awarding a long
service increment is the length of time on the maximum of the
scale, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88151 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11807
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WATERFORD CORPORATION
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim that service as a trainee fireman should be taken into
account for the purpose of applying the long service increment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns 20 firemen who also had service as trainee
firemen. The workers are paid through a salary scale which has
been in operation since 1981. It is a seven point salary scale
with provision that a worker on the maximum point for 6 years is
entitled to a long service increment. The Union is claiming that
service as a trainee fireman should be taken into account for the
purpose of applying the long service increment. The Corporation
rejected the claim. No agreement was reached through local
negotiations and on 26th June, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 14th August, 1987 but no agreement was
reached. On 26th February, 1988 the case was referred to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 23rd March, 1988 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the introduction of the incremental scale a
service payment based on 5, 10, 15, and 20 years' service was
in operation. This payment was discontinued with the
changeover to the scale, but what it is important to note is
that service pay was based on all service, including trainee
service.
2. Training periods for members of the service varied
considerably, ranging from five months to two years. This
fairly arbitrary system has resulted in an injustice in that
members with less total service become entitled to the long
service increment earlier than their longer service
colleagues. When it is taken into consideration that all the
new entrants into the service underwent the same initial two
week training course and thereafter operated as firemen on the
same basis as the other firemen, this injustice is even more
pronounced.
3. 3. Where members of the service had served in a part-time
capacity prior to entry as full-time firemen their part-time
service is taken into account for purposes of calculation of
the long service increment, and indeed for the purpose of
calculating their point of entry on the scale. There is
therefore a discriminatory factor operating against those who
entered as trainees.
4. The position elsewhere in the country is that in both Cork
and Limerick Fire Brigades the long service increment applies
after 12 years inclusive of trainee or part-time service. In
the Dublin service all firemen are placed on point one of the
scale upon entry into the service.
5. The Court is asked to take into account that this claim is
confined to nine members and should not re-occur in future as
new entrants will be placed on year one of the scale right
away.
6. The Union is confining the claim to the long service
increment and will not extend its argument for the purpose of
claiming earlier entry onto the scale proper. The Union is
concerned solely with the long service increments and see the
settlement of this claim as a once off adjustment to correct
an anomalous situation.
7. The cost of concession of the claim is not significant as
only three of the claimants would have qualified for the
increment to date, with the others achieving the service
requirement over the next three years.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned in this claim were recruited between
1973 and 1980 at the level of 'trainee' or 'junior' Firemen, a
grade with a narrow wage band of eligibility, a wage structure
below that for Firemen and a probationary period to enable
termination of the appointment in the event of necessity. The
conditions of employment for trainee firemen provided that:
"the appointee may, on reaching the age of 20 years and having
completed two years' satisfactory service be appointed as
Fireman in the Brigade."
The workers would have signed acceptance of the conditions,
served as 'trainee' firemen and were upgraded to Firemen. The
progression from 'trainee' or 'junior' Firemen to Firemen is
regulated by age, service and suitability in every case.
2. There was no long service increment attached to the
Fireman scale. At the time of the implementation of the Ryan
report in respect of Waterford Fire Brigade the long service
increment was deliberately excluded. In December, 1981 it was
agreed that the long service increment would be excluded and
service pay would continue to be paid.
4. 3. When the matter was raised in 1983 the Corporation pointed
to the impropriety of introducing the long service increment
while service pay was payable, it would mean that the Firemen
would be switching from service pay to long service increment
when it became financially advantageous for them to do so. If
the introduction of the long service increment were in
prospect payment on foot of service pay would have to be seen
as advance payment of long service increment whenever
implemented.
4. In May, 1986 the Corporation implemented the long service
increment as if it had operated from the outset. Service pay
was to be treated as overpayment and recovered. In July,
the Union accepted this position. In October, 1986 the
Corporation outlined its plan for recovery of service pay:-
(i) The full amount to be deducted from any Fireman who,
at time of introduction of the long service increment,
would have sufficient accumulated credit so to allow.
(ii) The long service increment not to become payable in
any particular case until and unless repayment of
service pay was complete in that case.
(iii) Otherwise, the deduction to be not less than £2 per
week and the repayment period not longer than two
years.
On 10th March, 1987 the Union accepted the Corporation's
conditions for payment of long service increment.
5. The Corporation cannot accept that a Fireman's service as
trainee fireman should be taken into account when the long
service increment was applied. If there was any basis for
this it would have been reflected in the application of the
incremental scale. The workers are seeking to change
retrospectively in their favour the conditions of their
appointment and as applied to them since.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, noting that the sole basis for awarding a long
service increment is the length of time on the maximum of the
scale, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___21st___April,____1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman