Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91675 Case Number: LCR13606 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by Union for the continuation of employment of a part-time firefighter.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties in
their oral and written submissions, finds that the claimant is
unable to meet the requirements for the job and consequently the
County Council is not acting unreasonably in putting into effect
the course of action proposed given the national agreed
standards.
The claimant however should be paid in full for time allocated
to telephone duty.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91675 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13606
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL
(Represented by the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by Union for the continuation of employment of a
part-time firefighter.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1991, revised guidelines were introduced at
national level relating to retirement age and the introduction
of an annual medical examination for retained fire service
personnel. The medical examination also includes eyesight
testing. The claimant was employed by the Council in 1979 as a
retained firefighter. In early 1991, the claimant failed to
meet the eyesight standards set out in the revised guidelines.
The claimant's situation was discussed by the parties at local
level and on 31st July, 1991, the Council informed the claimant
that, due to his failure to meet the fitness requirements, his
employment would be terminated on 30th September, 1991. The
termination of the claimant's employment was postponed while
discussions were taking place at national level on enhanced
gratuities for retained firefighters who are obliged to retire
on grounds of unfitness or ill health. However, when these
national level talks had not been completed by the beginning of
November, 1991, the Council decided they could no longer allow
the claimant to continue in the fire service and notified him
that his employment would be terminated on 30th November, 1991.
The Council also gave a commitment that he would be given the
benefit of any enhanced gratuity which might emerge from
national talks following the termination of his employment. The
Union claim that the firefighter should not be dismissed, as he
wore glasses when he joined the fire service and all through his
12 years in the service and during that period his eyesight has
not deteriorated appreciably. Local discussions failed to
resolve the matter and on 4th November, 1991, it was referred to
the
conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission. No
agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
19th November, 1991, and the Commission referred the matter to
the Labour Court on 16th December, 1991, in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 4th February, 1992, in Carlow.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant wore glasses when he joined the service.
His eyesight has not deteriorated to any great extent since
then. According to the Department of the Environment the
eyesight requirements contained in the revised guidelines
are less stringent than previous requirements. This means
that if he does not meet the current requirements then he
certainly did not meet previous requirements. So why then
was he passed as fit for duty.
2. There is work available within the service which would
not place the claimant, his colleagues or the public at
risk. When the service is called out to a fire, one member
is always left to man the station and answer the telephone.
This is in fact the job that the claimant has been doing
since the decision to dismiss him was taken. This is a job
he could do without being a danger to anyone. It is
unreasonable of the Council to refuse to give the claimant
this option but instead choose to treat him as if his
health had deteriorated. In fact, as his eyesight has not
deteriorated to any great extent since joining the service
he does not fall to be dealt with in the context of the
agreement on retirement on ill health grounds.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The medical requirements for the fire service are
based on Department of the Environment guidelines. Certain
defects, including visual acuity of less than the
stipulated standards, render firefighters unsuitable for
operational duties. No artificial aids to vision are
acceptable for use by operational personnel.
2. Periodic medical examinations take place to determine
the continuing fitness of fire-service staff to undertake
the demanding role of operational fire-fighting. The need
for these examinations has been recognised by the Unions.
Since the claimant's visual acuity falls short of the
required standards and cannot be satisfactorily rectified,
the Council has no choice but to terminate his employment.
In a similar situation involving a firefighter employed by
Offaly County Council, who was let go due to his failure to
meet eyesight requirements, the Court found that the
Council acted fairly in retiring the worker concerned.
(L.C.R. 12265 refers).
3. The medical standards applied by the Council to
firefighters are essential for a safe and effective
service. The County Manager is ultimately responsible for
ensuring that such standards are maintained. Cognisance
must be taken not only of the safety of the public but also
the safety of individual firefighters who could be put at
risk through any lowering of medical standards. This
stance is supported by the recent High Court judgment in
the case of Heeney V Dublin Corporation.
4. The claimant was restricted to station duties when the
results of his medical examination became known. This was
a temporary arrangement to facilitate Union/Management
discussions. It cannot be continued on a long-term basis
as this would cause further problems if another firefighter
failed the medical requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties in
their oral and written submissions, finds that the claimant is
unable to meet the requirements for the job and consequently the
County Council is not acting unreasonably in putting into effect
the course of action proposed given the national agreed
standards.
The claimant however should be paid in full for time allocated
to telephone duty.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
31st March, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Brian O'Neill, Court Secretary.