FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TIPPERARY (N.R.) COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Filling Of Sub-Officer Vacancy At Templemore Fire Station
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed by the Tipperary North Riding County Council as a retained firefighter. In September, 1999 a vacancy for the position of sub-station officer arose and applications were invited from firefighters in the Templemore fire brigade. Two applications were received and the candidates received a copy of the conditions of employment for the position. The following reference to attendance criteria was contained in item 3 (b):
"members shall be required except during sick leave of normal employment, to attend not less than 75% of all drills , and 75% of all fires in each quarter year, in order to qualify for receipt of retaining fee and clothing allowance."
Interviews were held and the worker was recommended for appointment. On successfully completing his medical examination he signed a copy of the conditions of employment. This copy of the conditions stated however in item 3(b) that
"members shall be required except during sick leave of normal employment to attend not less than 75% of all drills and50%of all fires in each quarter year in order to qualify for receipt of retaining fee and clothing allowance."
On realising its error the Council wrote to the worker on the 9th of November, 1999 attaching a copy of the conditions he had received when he applied for the position and outlining the relevant percentage attendance figure. The worker refused to sign the conditions and the Council did not proceed with the appointment on that basis.
The matter was referred by the Union to the Labour Court on the 9th of February, 2000 under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. It argues that the National Composite Agreement refers to drills only, not attendance and the refusal of the Council to allow the worker take up the position is unfair. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of April, 2000. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was successful in the selection process and should be allowed to take up his promotional post as sub station officer. He signed a contract with terms and conditions as practised in North Tipperary.
2. Management did not consult with the Union on this fundamental change in the conditions of employment for fire service personnel.
3. The refusal of management to allow the worker take up the position of sub-station officer is unfair. In reality he has consistently attended fires at a rate above the revised required minimum. He is being penalised for refusing to agree to a fundamental change introduced in breech of a position agreed nationally.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1995 the conditions of employment for all subsequent vacant posts in Tipperary (NR) fire service were revised. This involved a change in the attendance criteria for fires from 50% to 75%. The individual who previously held the post in dispute had the 75% attendance criteria as a condition of employment.
2. On the day the worker was interviewed he accepted the conditions of employment attached to the position including the 75% attendance criteria.
3. It is accepted that erroneous conditions were sent to the worker. This clerical error does not justify the Union's case as it was clearly understood by the worker that a 75% attendance criteria was a condition of employment based on the conditions which were forwarded to him when he applied for the post.
4. The Chief Fire Officers Association nationally has recommended a 75% attendance criteria for attendance at fires.
5. The national agreement on pay and conditions of employment for retained fire fighters reached with SIPTU in August, 1999 clearly acknowledges a Chief Fire Officer's right to set an attendance standard which he/she considers reasonable in all the circumstances.
6. Based on his attendance record previously the worker should have no difficulty in meeting a 75% attendance standard.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the points raised by both sides. The Court is of the view that a dispute has arisen in this situation due to an error on the part of the County Council. The Court is satisfied that following application, the claimant was given details of the terms and conditions of the promotional post, including the requirement to attend at 75% of fires. The Court notes that the claimant did not raise this issue at interview or at any other time, prior to receiving the corrected version of his contract of employment, even though he clearly had reservations on the 75% requirement.
On discovering that the error was made the Court is satisfied that the County Council did everything possible to rectify the situation. Examples were given to the Court (6 appointments) that the standard liability for sub station officers recruited since 1995 was 75%. The claimant indicated to the Court that he had indeed been working in excess of the required attendance rate for many years and that he does not have a problem with working this attendance liability.
In order to rectify the situation and allow the claimant take up his promotional position, the Court recommends that the Union should accept that this dispute arose due to an error. The Court further recommends that both sides should set about rectifying that position without delay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th May, 2000______________________
F.B./F.B.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.