Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89172 Case Number: LCR12399 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the conditions attached to housing a waterworks caretaker.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that further discussion should take place between
them, aimed at exploring in detail the various avenues open for
reaching an amicable settlement in this case. Should the parties
so wish the the Court will make the services of an Industrial
Relations Officer available to assist them in their discussions.
The Court further recommends that these discussions should be
concluded within a month of the date of this recommendation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89172 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12399
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the conditions attached to
housing a waterworks caretaker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed as a waterworks
caretaker by the Council for the last 10 years. For the first 7
he was located in North Kilkenny. In August, 1985, he took up a
position as caretaker at the Troyswood waterworks. His terms of
employment required that he live in a house provided at the
location. When he took up his appointment he was unable to move
into the house because the Council did not have vacant possession.
(The Council had let the house to another employee to prevent
vandalism and trespass). The Council informed the worker that
they were endeavouring to find suitable alternative employment.
3. At this stage, since he was assured of accommodation, the
worker put his own home up for sale. He was the tenant/purchaser
of a local authority house and the Council had given permission
for the sale. In September, 1986, the Council, due to
difficulties in gaining possession of the house at Troyswood,
asked if he would wait until they could build a new house on site
for him. The worker agreed to do this. He also decided to go
ahead with the sale of his house and then when the new owner
required possession he would move a caravan onto the Troyswood
site and live in it until the new house was built. The new house
was ready in June, 1987. The worker was then presented with a
letting agreement which provided that he would have to pay a fixed
rent of #16 per week. The worker claimed that since it was a
condition of his employment that he live in the house, it was
unreasonable to expect him to pay the full differential rent with
less rights than any other tenant i.e. he could never become a
tenant/purchaser unlike all other local authority tenants. He
felt that the house should be rent free or at some agreed nominal
rent. The worker refused to sign the letting agreement or pay the
rent demanded by the Council and in April, 1988, he was officially
informed that weekly deductions of #36 were to be made to his
wages until the rent arrears accrued had been cleared. Upon
protest from the worker this was reduced to #26 per week.
4. In June, 1988, the Union proposed 2 options in an attempt to
resolve the matter.
(a) The worker occupy the house on a rent free or nominal
rent basis. He would vacate the premises upon
resignation or retirement from the job. An amount up to
the normal differential rent could continue to be
deducted from his wages and this would be put into an
endowment scheme to be drawn upon to fund his housing
needs upon vacating the caretaker's house.
(b) He pay the full differential rent and be given the full
entitlements of any other Local Authority tenant.
However, the Council's right to take possession of the
caretaker's house for his successor could be recognised
by an agreement to the effect that the worker could
transfer all accrued rights to another suitable house
owned by the Council.
The Council rejected these proposals and on 20th February, 1989,
the matter was referred by the Union to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
investigated the matter on 25th April, 1989, in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It was the Council who insisted that the worker reside in
the caretaker's house. He would have been quite content to
continue living in his own house, however, he felt that he
would not get the position if he showed any unwillingness to
move.
2. If the worker has to pay the full differential rent
without receiving the same rights as other local authority
tenants then he will be worse off as his own home had been on
tenant/purchase and he would have eventually owned it
outright.
3. The Council should not have given permission to him to
sell his house unless they were entirely satisfied that the
tenant/purchaser had satisfactory arrangements for alternative
accommodation and would not at a future date be coming before
any local authority with an application for housing. If the
worker agreed to the terms proposed by the Council he would
have to vacate the caretaker's house on retirement and would
have no choice but to apply for local authority housing.
4. At no stage during the application or interview procedure,
nor up to appointment, did the Council indicate that the
worker would have to pay full differential rent without
receiving full rights. Other caretakers employed by the
Council enjoy quite favourable arrangements as regards living
accommodation. Indeed, one caretaker has a rent free house.
5. The Union's proposals are a reasonable attempt to settle
the matter. The Union requests the Court to recommend that
the Council accepts and implements either of, or a combination
of these proposals.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Council, whilst agreeing that the worker's appointment
required him to reside in the house provided for the
caretaker, it never insisted on compliance with this
requirement. He was well aware that the Council would permit
him to continue to occupy his own house. In fact, the worker
pressed the Council to provide him with a house, with the
result that one had to be specially built for him at a cost of
#48,054.
2. The worker was offered the tenancy of this house under the
same conditions applying to any other local authority tenants
and charged a differential rate in accordance with the scheme.
At no time was he led to believe that he would be provided
with the house either rent free or at a reduced rent.
3. The worker was well aware that his predecessor had
accepted that he would be liable to pay rent for the
caretaker's house. He also knew that the caretaker at
Purcellsinch was paying rent. Following a meeting on 18th
September, 1986, he clearly understood that he too would be
charged rent.
4. The worker precipitated his own housing situation by
selling his own house while knowing that the Council had no
vacant house at the time to offer him in Troyswood.
5. The weekly rent of #16 is very low after taking into
account the cost of providing the house. The type and
standard of accommodation provided in the house would in other
circumstances warrant the charging of a much higher weekly
rent.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that further discussion should take place between
them, aimed at exploring in detail the various avenues open for
reaching an amicable settlement in this case. Should the parties
so wish the the Court will make the services of an Industrial
Relations Officer available to assist them in their discussions.
The Court further recommends that these discussions should be
concluded within a month of the date of this recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
____________________
18th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.