FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to 1982 the management structure in the Fire Service comprised of Chief Fire Officer and Second Fire Officer (below the level of Chief Fire Officer). The post of the Chief Fire Officer required possession of an appropriate degree but the post of Second Fire Officer did not. As part of an agreement reached in 1982 a new grade of Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Operational) was created immediately below the level of Chief Fire Officer. It was agreed that the new post would have a qualification of an appropriate degree or an equivalent professional qualification but this was waived in the case of the existent Second Fire Officers who were allowed to become Assistant Chief Fire Officers on a personal basis.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim for compensation on behalf of workers employed as Second Fire Officers in 1982. It argues that the Board is in breach of the 1982 agreement which states that "It is agreed that further discussions will be held between the management side and the staff side with a view to the implementation as soon as practicable of arrangements for the provision of appropriate Third Level and other educational courses designed in particular to facilitate staff at different levels in qualifying for advancement within the new structure provided for in this agreement"
The Board does not accept that there is any basis for the Union's claim and argues that it was not its fault that agreement had not been reached in respect of training for the claimants.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of May, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of July, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The failure of the Board in dealing with its commitment contained in the 1992 agreement has denied the former Senior Fire Officers access to the grade of Chief Fire Officer with the subsequent loss of salary and pension/gratuity entitlements.
2. The Union entered into an agreement with the Board concerning the provision of a roster for Senior Fire Officers. Officers covered by this claim are on those rosters and take charge on an equal basis with other officers including the Chief Fire Officers during their week on call. Second Fire Officers are deemed to be suitably trained and of equal standing with all other officers on the roster. In certain counties the Second Fire Officers are required to act up in the absence of the Chief Fire Officer. This is a unique position as they cannot apply for the post of Chief Fire Officer.
3. The Court is requested to recognise that this small number of officers have, for whatever reasons lost out on an opportunity which was their entitlement under the 1982 agreement and for which they were led to believe would lead to an enhancement of their position. Now 18 years on and with the majority of them due to retire within the next 5/6 years, no one officer is seriously considering the provision of such qualifications. Management recognise that time will settle this problem and there is no incentive on its part to seriously engage in the provision of this facility.
4. The Union is seeking £40,000 compensation in respect of each Assistant Chief Fire Officer who was previously a Second Fire Officer. This sum equates to an approximate sum based on the loss of potential earnings if a particular person had been promoted and in recognition of the losses accruing from their pension entitlement. It is also in recognition of the serious loss suffered as a failure of the Board to initiate an acceptable education programme.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board does not accept that there is any basis for a claim for compensation in this case. The 1982 agreement provided that "further discussions" would be held between the parties. It also provided that the objective was to facilitate "staff at different levels" in "qualifying" for advancement within the new structure. At the union's initiative the outcome of the meeting on 10th February 1983 effectively varied the terms of this agreement whereby the matter was referred to the Fire Services Council. This removed the issue from the ambit of the Board and transferred same to another independent corporate body established under statute, namely the Fire Services Council. This was on the basis that the unions at the time argued that the issue should not be in the collective bargaining arena.
2. It should be noted that the 1982 agreement also provided that "as a transitional and wholly exceptional measure" existing Second Fire Officers (whose salary maximum at the time was £9,865) would be regraded to a new "professional" grade of Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Operational) with a maximum salary of £13,769. The agreement also provided for substantial ex-gratia payments to each former Second Fire Officer, based on service, from a minimum of £1,750 to a maximum of £2,000.
3. Even if this claim has validity, which is not accepted, compensation is this case would be impossible to measure as there is no way of knowing (i) how many former Second Fire Officers would have successfully availed of educational facilities and (ii) if successful how many would have obtained Chief Fire Officer posts having regard to the fact that Chief Fire Officer posts are filled by open publicly advertised competitions. There are 29 Chief Fire Officer posts in the country in total.
4. The 1982 agreement refers to discussions to facilitate staff at different levels in qualifying for advancement. It should be noted that a consequence of the 1982 agreement was the removal of a promotional outlet from operational personnel. It is clear therefore that the facilities would not just apply to former Second Fire Officers and any concession in this case could have knock on implications throughout the fire service.
5. The claim is a cost increasing one and precluded under the Partnership 2000 pay agreement. As already stated there is no basis for a compensation claim in this instance. At the initiative of the unions representing fire service personnel the terms of the 1982 agreement were varied and the matter was taken out of the collective bargaining arena. The 1982 agreement provided substantial monetary compensation for former Second Fire Officers in the form of a regrading to a "professional post without the need for a professional qualification together with ex-gratia payments. Compensation even if justified, which is not accepted, would not be measurable in this case. This claim is cost increasing with potential knock on implications and is thereby precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000. For these reasons as elaborated above the Court is requested to find in the Board's favour and so direct.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view there has been an unacceptably long delay in dealing with the commitment contained in the 1982 Agreement in relation to the provision of appropriate educational courses to facilitate staff in securing advancement within the Fire Services concerned. Given the complexity of the issues involved, the Court shares the Union's view that it is now inappropriate to seek to apportion blame for this inactivity. The Court does, however, recommend that the various parties concerned should definitively deal with this matter without further delay.
With regard to the substance of the Union's claim, the Court is not satisfied that this is a case in which it could recommend the payment of compensation on the grounds put forward. At this stage it is not possible to identify the individuals who might have availed of such educational facilities had they been provided. It is equally impossible to identify the extent, if any, to which such educational courses, even if provided, would have resulted in particular individual officers being promoted.
Having regard to all of the circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd August, 2000______________________
FB/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.