Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9234 Case Number: LCR13604 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rates of pay for hose and ladder squads.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties, oral and
written does not consider there are grounds for concession of
the Union's claim and accordingly rejects it.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9234 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13604
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rates of pay for hose and ladder
squads.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. There are 32 part-time firemen working with the
Council in hose and ladder squads (details supplied). Each
squad is equipped with a trailer, a hose, a pump and a
ladder. The squads provide first aid fire fighting in the
villages where they are located until the arrival of the
nearest mobile unit. Supervisory responsibility for the
squads rests with the station officer of the mobile unit of
the area in which they are located. Hose and ladder squads
operate in the Counties Kerry, Limerick and Donegal in a
voluntary capacity. Squads were disbanded in some other
counties.
2. The workers on the squads are paid, 50% of the
nationally agreed retainer for part-time firemen. The
Union made a claim on the Council for the payment of the
full retainer to the workers in the squads. No agreement
was possible locally and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on 3rd October, 1991. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on 10th
January, 1992. A Labour Court investigation took place in
Castlebar on 12th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rates of pay for retained fire personnel are
agreed nationally. Part-time firemen employed by the
Council on the hose and ladder squads are paid only half of
the retainer paid to part-time mobile firemen. The
retainer is paid to the part-time firemen for their
availability to attend fires, for their being "on call" and
for their practice responsibilities. There is no dispute
regarding the hourly rate. All part-time firemen are paid
the same hourly rate.
2. It is inequitable to pay the workers 50% of the
retainer. They are suffering ongoing loss. Only half the
retainer is included in their gratuity when they retire.
The Council argues that the claim is contrary to the "cost
increasing claims" clause of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (PESP). This is an unacceptable argument
as this is not a special increase claim but an attempt to
secure for the workers the rate to which they are entitled.
There was no agreement on the present rate. The workers
are prepared to negotiate a phasing in of the new rates.
COUNCIL ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Hose and ladder squads are designed to provide first
aid fire fighting until the arrival of the nearest mobile
unit to the fire. The squads' levels of responsibility are
therefore, less than that of the mobile units. The squads
have no station area of responsibility as their area comes
within the area of mobile unit. Hose and ladder squads are
being phased out nationally and in the County. In this
context it is inappropriate for the Council to increase
payments.
2. If this claim is conceded it would contravene the
terms of the P.E.S.P. Provision has not been made in the
1992 estimates for such payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties, oral and
written does not consider there are grounds for concession of
the Union's claim and accordingly rejects it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
30th March, 1992 ___________________
J.F./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.