Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94215 Case Number: LCR14479 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WEXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
1. Rostering. 2. Standby for one hour. 3. Pay to the nearest quarter of an hour. 4. Maintenance of breathing apparatus equipment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that
the issues have not been adequately negotiated. The Court regards
the Council's proposals in rostering as having particular merit
and recommends that this and the other issues be seriously
negotiated without further delay. If agreement, including
consideration of compensation, is not reached by the end of July,
the matter should be referred back to the Court for final
recommendation.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94215 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14479
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WEXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Rostering.
2. Standby for one hour.
3. Pay to the nearest quarter of an hour.
4. Maintenance of breathing apparatus equipment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Council operates a fire service which comprises five
station/crews (New Ross, Wexford, Gorey, Enniscorthy and
Bunclody). All stations have two crews (twelve workers)
except Bunclody which has one crew of six.
In December, 1993, the Council proposed a number of changes
regarding practices and procedures in the fire service, to
take place from 1st January, 1994. There were four issues in
which the Council claimed malpractices were taking place.
ISSUE 1. ROSTERING:
In 1973, a National Agreement for the fire service was
introduced which established national rates of pay and
conditions. The Council intends introducing rostering for
all crews, everyday, for minor incidents e.g. chimney
fires. This arrangement exists at present only in the
Wexford area on weekdays.
ISSUE 2. STANDBY FOR ONE HOUR:
The Council intends introducing a system whereby a standby
crew will remain at the fire station for one hour only as
opposed to the full duration of the fire which is the
present system.
ISSUE 3. PAY TO THE NEAREST QUARTER OF AN HOUR:
The Council intends paying firefighters to the nearest
quarter of an hour instead of the nearest full hour
upwards.
ISSUE 4. MAINTENANCE OF BREATHING APPARATUS:
Routine maintenance will be carried out by firemen after a
fire or while on duty. The Council also intends hiring a
contractor to service breathing apparatus on an annual or
twice yearly basis.
The dispute was discussed at local level and at conciliation
conferences on 26th January, 1994 and 9th February, 1994. No
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act 1990, on 14th April, 1994. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 31st May, 1994 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1973 National Agreement was designed to ensure the
availability of firefighters. In 1986, the Council
negotiated a rostering agreement with the Union. This
concluded the Union's obligations under the Agreement.
The Council's proposal to introduce further rostering
arrangements will severely cut firefighters' earnings.
2. At present, in the case of an incident, the standby crew
is on call, and paid, for the duration of the incident.
If a crew is fatigued on returning from a fire/incident,
the standby crew check and clean the equipment. The
Council's proposal, that standby crews return home after
one hour on-call, would mean the same crew going out to
a second or third fire/incident. This would be
dangerous and could endanger lives. The present system
is long established with good reason. Losses to a
firefighter would be approximately #2,000 per annum.
3. Crews are presently paid to the nearest hour. This
takes account of travel, cleaning and washing. All
local authority workers have a minimum call-out
time. Losses to a firefighter would be approximately
#2,000 per annum.
4. The breathing apparatus is probably the most important
piece of equipment of a firefighter. Servicing of the
equipment is always carried out separately from all
other duties. Checking the equipment at the 'tail-end'
of other jobs could lead to faulty equipment and
endanger the lives of the firefighters.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the past, the Labour Court has accepted the Council's
right to introduce rostering as per the 1973 National
Agreement, (LCR's 10779, 11731 and 11768 refer). It is
unrealistic that a full crew of twelve firefighters turn
out for minor fires. A rostered crew of six
firefighters will result in a saving of #38,000 per
annum. Full crews (rostered and unrostered) will turn
out for major incidents.
2. With the new proposals, the responsible officers can
decide whether a second crew is necessary at a
fire/incident. It is not necessary to keep a full crew
on standby for the duration of a fire if it is not
required. Keeping the second crew at the station for
one hour only would mean a saving of approximately
#24,000 per annum.
3. There is no justification for paying firefighters for
time not worked. At present firefighters can be paid
one hour at premium rate even if they have only worked
five minutes. The Council's proposal of pay to the
nearest quarter hour is reasonable and in line with
other local authorities paying part-time firefighters.
It would mean a saving of #16,000 per annum.
4. At present, the maintenance of breathing apparatus is
paid separately, at premium rates, at a cost of #11,000
per annum. This procedure could be done during standby
or training hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that
the issues have not been adequately negotiated. The Court regards
the Council's proposals in rostering as having particular merit
and recommends that this and the other issues be seriously
negotiated without further delay. If agreement, including
consideration of compensation, is not reached by the end of July,
the matter should be referred back to the Court for final
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd June, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
C.O.N./D.T. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.