Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92250 Case Number: LCR13650 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Retirement date of a full-time fireman.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered this case in the context of the
reasonable expectations held by the claimant and the operational
requirements of the fire-service. On the balance, the Court
considers that the claimant's employment should be extended for
one further year to 13th May, 1993. During that year, the
claimant should be given the training proposed earlier by the
Chief Fire Officer, to improve his prospects of alternative
outside employment.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92250 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13650
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WATERFORD CORPORATION
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Retirement date of a full-time fireman.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment in the Fire Services
in a part-time capacity in 1971. In 1978 he was promoted to a
full-time position. The terms of his contract of employment
provided for retirement on reaching the age of 55. In 1986 the
worker was promoted to the position of temporary sub-officer and
in June, 1987, he was appointed to that position permanently. It
was a condition of his employment that since he would not have
attained full service for superannuation purposes on reaching age
55 that his employment could be extended to not more than 60 years
of age, on certification on an annual basis by the Chief Fire
Officer. On reaching the age of 55 on the 13th May 1990, the
worker was granted an extension of 1 year. He received a further
extension of 1 year on reaching the age of 56. On 30th January,
1992, the chief fire officer advised the worker that he did not
propose to recommend extension of his employment beyond the 13th
May, 1992. The Union claims that the worker's expectations were
that he would be retained in the fire services until he reached
the age of 60. The Council rejected the claim. The Union
proposed that the matter be investigated by a Rights Commissioner.
The proposal was not acceptable to the Corporation and the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court hearing on 6th
May, 1992 the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1987 contract (promotion to sub-officer) recognised
the worker's superannuation problems and provided for
retirement beyond the age of 55. No new precedent will be
established if the Court uphold the Union's claim.
2. The worker is physically and mentally fit to continue
his duties. The worker is willing to submit to a medical
examination and has no reason to fear the outcome.
3. The chief fire officer refused to recommend a further
extension of the worker's employment because he fears that
morale of the fire service is affected because of the lack of
promotional outlets.
4. The chief fire officer is mistaken if he believes that
his actions will improve morale. The worker concerned is
highly regarded in the service and his colleagues do not want
him forced into retirement.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is clear that an age limit of 55 was attached to the
post of sub-officer and that the worker was aware of this
condition. This was confirmed by letters of 5th April, 1990
and 16th April, 1991 (details with Court).
2. The Corporation has dealt in a most compassionate manner
with the worker by granting him two extensions at his request.
3. During the period of the worker's extended employment,
the chief fire officer counselled him concerning development
of alternative fire fighting related skills with the view to
employment after his retirement and made provision for the
worker to gain suitable experience to equip him for such.
4. The chief fire officer has advised that having regard to
the organisational and functional needs of the fire brigade,
junior officer training and allowance for promotional
opportunity and advancement in the brigade, he could not
recommend a further extension of employment for the worker.
5. Arrangements to recruit suitable replacements were
already in train prior to representations being received from
the Union.
6. Over three months notice of his retirement date was
given to the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered this case in the context of the
reasonable expectations held by the claimant and the operational
requirements of the fire-service. On the balance, the Court
considers that the claimant's employment should be extended for
one further year to 13th May, 1993. During that year, the
claimant should be given the training proposed earlier by the
Chief Fire Officer, to improve his prospects of alternative
outside employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
4th June, 1992 ----------------
F.B/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.