AD0010

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the County Council against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. IR530/99/GF.


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns approximately 30 workers (crafts and general operatives) employed in the Housing Maintenance Section of South Dublin County Council. In 1993, following the dissolution of Dublin County Council three separate Local Authorities were established - Fingal County Council, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council and South Dublin County Council. As a direct result of these changes there was a redeployment of workers to each of the new authorities on a voluntary basis. In early 1997 South Dublin County Council took over ownership and responsibility of 5,500 houses which had been in the ownership of Dublin Corporation. A number of posts were transferred to the Council and Corporation workers were offered the opportunity to transfer. Twenty three workers did so in 1997 and were assigned to the Council's Housing Maintenance depot in Jobstown, Tallaght. The ownership of this depot also transferred to the Council from the Corporation at that time.




The former Dublin Corporation workers' pay and conditions were red-circled on transfer and a part of these conditions was that they were paid travel time of one and three quarter hours per day. Their colleagues at the depot were paid travel time of one hour per day. The Unions claimed that all workers at the depot should receive travel time of one and three quarter hours per day. The Council rejected the claim. Protracted local discussions failed to resolve the issue. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 21st July, 1999 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-

"It must be obvious that to bring such an anomaly into the depot and attempt to "red-circle" it was mistaken. The problem should have been deal with in some other manner, it simply will not go away, and it can only worsen in the future. Therefore, I recommend the workers involved be paid the higher rates as and from September, 1999".

On the 10th August, 1999 the Council appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 3rd March, 2000.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. At local level discussions the Unions originally proposed that the Council should consider buying out the Travel Time from Corporation workers. This would have resolved the matter, however it was rejected by Management.

2. It is grossly unfair to the claimants, working alongside their colleagues, that they should be paid the lower rate and suffer the loss of approximately £30-£40 per week. This loss is ongoing for the past three years.

3. The anomaly in travel time of three-quarters of one hour per day has created dissatisfaction within the workplace and has resulted in unofficial action being taken by the workers. The failure of Management to properly address the problem had led to this unfortunate situation. The problem can only be exacerbated as the hourly rate will continue to increase in the future.

4. The claim is not cost increasing under Partnership 2000, as it pre dated the Partnership 2000 agreement.


COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation seemed to disregard the fact that red circling arrangements are once-off flexible devices to resolve industrial relations issues and are entered into on the understanding that such arrangements will not produce a consequential claim. If such an understanding is not present red-circling arrangements are not entered into. In this instance the Unions were aware of and Management repeatedly emphasised, that the red-circling arrangement covering Corporation workers who transferred would not be applied to South Dublin workers.

2. The potential cost of this claim is approximately £25,000 p.a., however its concession could lead to a raft of consequential claims for improved travel and other payments in the service areas of the Council and in all other local authorities, health boards etc. While the claim itself is related to travel time, the transferred workers also had other allowances red-circled. The Council also has a number of other red-circling arrangements in place. The consequence of conceding this claim would be a declaration by the Unions of an 'open season' on all other red-circling arrangements. The potential cost to the Council is astronomical.





3. In a similar case involving red-circling of a higher rate to a number of South Dublin workers another Rights Commissioner rejected the Unions' claim for payment of the higher rate to other employers working alongside them. The Court in previous recommendation (LCR14963, 15801) has relied on red-circling as a recommended solution to industrial relations problems.

4. Notwithstanding the above the claim is cost-increasing and precluded by the terms of Partnership 2000.




DECISION:

The use of "red circling" as a means of resolving industrial relations issues is not unusual, and can on occasions result in some Employees earning more income than others doing similar work. The "red circling" is usually agreed for accepting a change of position or working arrangement. For this reason, it does not justify other employees receiving the same allowance because of any perceived anomaly arising.

In this particular case there is no loss to anyone.

The Court, therefore upholds the appeal and rejects the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.

However the Court, given the arguments made at the hearing, recommends to the Management that it explores with the Unions means of agreeing with the 23 former Corporation employees a basis for removing this 3/4 hour payment difference.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
10th March, 2000______________________
T. O'D/U.S.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.