Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89581 Case Number: LCR12611 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the structure of payment of part-time
firemen, i.e. retainer plus call-out, the Court does not find that
changing public demand for the service, arising in this case, from
a variety of reasons, is good grounds for a claim for compensation
in respect of a reduction in call-out earnings. Accordingly the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89581 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12611
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987, Wicklow County Council introduced a #25 levy for fire
brigade attendance at chimney fires. Firemen in Bray later
claimed that the levy resulted in a reduced number of call outs
and accordingly, in a corresponding reduction in their earnings.
Their union lodged a claim for compensation for workers who
suffered a loss of earnings. It was rejected by the Council and
subsequently was the subject of a Labour Court conciliation
conference on 27th April, 1989. No agreement was reached and the
Union requested a full Court hearing on 30th August, 1989. The
Council agreed and the Court investigated the dispute on 12th
October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to May 1987 the fire brigade would respond to all
chimney fire call-outs. Following the introduction of the
#25.00 levy, callers to the fire service are advised of the
charge at call-out stage. Some callers then cancel their
request. Public advertising of the charge also reduced the
number of calls for the brigade's attendance at chimney fires.
Information to hand confirms that in 1987 there were 510
chimney fire calls and in 1988 there were 335 such calls - a
reduction of 175. It is logical to conclude that the
introduction of the levy has contributed to the reduction.
The Council have gone from the position of no revenue for the
chimney calls to the position of #25.00 for each chimney fire
call. This can only be regarded as a considerable saving to
the Council. On the other hand the workers concerned have
sustained a reduction in earnings as a consequence of the
introduction of the #25.00 levy.
2. Earnings for the income tax years 1987, 1988 and 1989
for one workers have decreased as follows:-
1987 #5550
1988 #5304
1989 #5161
(P.60 for the three years supplied to the Court)
These earnings include wage increases sanctioned during that
period. Earnings for 1988 are inflated by virtue of the fact
that in 1988 the fire crews were working on call for nine
months of the year as against the usual six months on call.
Normally there are two crews alternating on a week on week off
basis.
3. Workers had a reasonable expectation of on-going higher
earnings through the ever growing housing developments in the
areas serviced by the fire station. This expectation has been
eliminated through the introduction of the levy. The
following criteria, which has been met, justifies a
compensation payment to the workers concerned with the claim:-
A. An on going expectation of the higher
earnings existed prior to the introduction of
the levy.
B. An actual loss of earnings has occurred.
C. The Council have saved money by generating
extra revenue through the introduction of the
levy.
4. It is difficult to quantify the exact extent of losses
accruing following the introduction of the levy. However,
workers have suffered a loss of earnings directly as a result
and a compensation payment in the region of #900 per claimant
is justified.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim submitted for loss of earnings by firemen in
the Bray Station due to the introduction of the chimney fire
levy by the Council in June, 1987 can only be made in respect
of five workers as eight workers were recruited after that
date. Consequently, the eight firemen had no loss of earnings
arising from the introduction of the levy.
2. Retained firemen are only guaranteed their retainer and
are not guaranteed any specific amounts in respect of
call-outs. In other stations e.g. Carnew, Tinahely, Wicklow,
Arklow etc, call-outs are far less that those obtaining in the
Bray Brigade.
3. The Council contend that the reduction in the number of
fire crew call-outs is due to a variety of reasons and does
not refer solely to chimneys and to the introduction of the
chimney fire levy. The factors which have helped the
reduction are as follows:-
(A) The recruitment in September, 1986 of four
full-time Fire Control Operators at Bray fire
station combined with the introduction of an
extremely effective call-back system which
drastically reduced the very high level of bogus
calls in the Bray area. (Bogus calls in 1984 =
111, 1985 = 112, 1986 = 46, 1987 = 21, 1988 =
22,).
(B) The recruitment in 1985 of two permanent
full-time Fire Prevention Officers i.e. an
Assistant Chief Fire Officer (prevention) and an
Assistant Fire Officer (prevention) to ensure
compliance with the proper fire prevention
standards in houses and business premises
throughout the county. Prior to that date there
were only two full time Fire Officers, i.e. The
Chief Fire Officer and the Assistant Chief Fire
Officer (operational).
(C) The greater consciousness among the public of the
need for fire precautions in the home and in
particular for the cleaning of chimneys on a
regular basis. This was brought about by the
national campaign run by the Fire Prevention
Council, by the local campaign mounted in schools
and by the holding of open days at fire stations.
Considerable publicity on fire prevention was
also given in the local press in relation to fire
prevention and in information leaflets and
newsletters issued by the Council to every
house-holder in the country.
(D) There has also been considerable competition
among local firms dealing with chimney cleaning
and representatives from such firms call
regularly to householders.
4. 4. The factual position in relation to savings and earnings
for the Council arising from the introduction of the chimney
fire levy is that income from the levy in 1987 was #1,420, in
1988 was #3,438 and for the eight months to the 31st of
August, 1989 was #1,150. Call-outs, reduced from 232 in 1986
to 141 in 1988 i.e. by 91. The cost of 91 call-outs at an
average figure of #120 per call-out is #10,920. Accordingly,
the total figure from chimney levy receipts and reduction in
call-outs for 1988 is #14,358. It must be pointed out however
that, arising from the recruitment of two whole-time permanent
Fire Prevention Officers and four full-time Fire Control
Operators and also to increased outlay on publicity and
training of fire brigade personnel etc. the Council's
expenditure on the fire brigade service rose from #641,982 in
1986 to #718,367 in 1988.
5. Detailed earnings of five workers (supplied to the
Court) for the financial years January - December 1986, 1987
and 1988 indicate that the claimants have not suffered any
reduction in income.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the structure of payment of part-time
firemen, i.e. retainer plus call-out, the Court does not find that
changing public demand for the service, arising in this case, from
a variety of reasons, is good grounds for a claim for compensation
in respect of a reduction in call-out earnings. Accordingly the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
23rd October, 1989 ---------------
A. McG/U.S. Chairman