FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Millennium payment for field grade staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 20th of December, 1999, the Labour Court issued LCR16401 in which it recommended payment of an Exceptional Millennium Bonus (EMB) to healthcare workers required to work between the hours of 8.00am on the 31st of December, 1999 and 8.00am on the 2nd of January, 2000.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of 188 field staff involved in protection duties for the payment of £360 for the on-call period of 48 hours, as outlined in LCR16401. It argues that the workers are entitled to be paid under Chapter 17 of the Board's Staff Scheme which states:-
"Field staff engaged on fishery protection are required to be available 24 hours each day and through seven days each week."
The Board rejects the claim. Its position is that it is management's prerogative to roster staff and it indicated to the Union in December, 1999 that it would be designating certain staff to be on-call/standby between 8.00am on the 31st of December, 1999 and 8.00am on the 2nd of January, 2000 and that the appropriate payments as set out in LCR16401 would be made to the relevant field staff concerned.
The matter was the subject of two conciliation conferences 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 20th of July, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of October, 2000, the first date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Field staff engaged on fishery protection duties are required to be available 24 hours each day and through seven days each week. In the circumstances it was not open to management to selectively and unilaterally designate a reduced number of staff to cover on call/standby for the Millennium period. Management has always insisted that the terms and conditions of employment of fishery protection staff require staff to be available.
2. In LCR16401 the Court having recognised "the uniqueness of the occasion" and recommended that staff on-call/ standby but away from their place of employment, should receive an EMB of £180 per call-out period of 24 hours exclusive of any call-out payment normally paid. Given that the workers concerned are on- call/standby for 24 hours each day, each worker is entitled to an EMB payment of £360.
3. Notwithstanding the requirement of fishery protection staff to be available over 24 hours each day, 7 days per week, they receive no on-call/standby allowance as such. They receive an unsocial hours allowance to cover unsocial hours worked.
4. It is difficult to understand the mendacity of the Board when presented with an opportunity to recognise the dedication of its staff, on an occasion which occurs every thousand years, it chose instead a penny-pinching approach which has soured industrial relations with the protection officers and which is likely to influence attitudes towards the Board which will far outweigh the cost of the claim.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the issue of LCR16401, management confirmed to the Union that it would apply the terms of the Recommendation to the staff of the fisheries service who were required to work or be on-call/standby between 8.00am on the 31st of December, 1999 and 8.00am on the 2nd of January, 2000. It also confirmed that it would be rostering those staff required to work over this period and would designate staff to be on-call/standby during the hours between 8.00am on the 31st of December, 1999 and 8.00am on the 2nd of January, 2000.
2. Management assessed its operational requirements for the Millennium period and, in accordance with the Labour Court Recommendation, designated those staff required to be on-call/standby and hold themselves available for work during the specified hours between 8.00am on the 31st of December, 1999 and 8.00am on the 2nd of January, 2000. All staff who were designated on-call/standby at any time over the 48 hour period received appropriate payments i.e. an additional £180 per 24 hours on a pro-rata basis.
3. To compensate staff engaged in protection duties for unsocial hours working commitment and varied level of duty, the following unsocial hours allowances are payable according to grade:
Inspector: £3,389
Assistant Inspector: £3,308
Fishery Officer: £3,253
Additionally, time off in lieu is granted for any time worked in excess of a 39 hour week. The above allowances, agreed between management and Union, are paid on a weekly basis to the grades concerned.
4. Paragraph 17.2 of the 1984 Staff Scheme refers to management's prerogative for rostering as follows "It will be a matter for management in consultation with staff to determine all working arrangements and if, when and how much unsocial hours work is required."
On this occasion management determined their working arrangements, including unsocial hours working required over the Millennium period, and rostered/designated those staff it required consistent with the terms of LCR16401.
5. Other Civil and Public Service organisations without exception, applied the Labour Court Recommendation by rostering/designating those staff required to work or be on-call/standby over the Millennium period, in accordance with their operational needs.
6. Management contends that there is no justification for the Union's claim and the management has acted reasonably in applying the terms and special payments in LCR16401 to the relevant field grade staff, who were required for Millennium working. The Union, in reality, is attempting to re-negotiate the Labour Court Recommendation, which has been applied to numerous Civil/Public Service organisations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claims which gave rise to LCR16401 were based on the proposition that because of the uniqueness of the Millennium holiday period exceptional disadvantage would be suffered by those deprived of the opportunity to participate in the festivities planned over the period by being required to work, or hold themselves available for work, on the dates in question.
This presupposed that the preferred option of those associated with those claims was to be relieved of the obligation to work, or remain available for work. Since this was not possible in all cases, the Court recommended the payment of an exceptional bonus to those whose attendance at, or availability for work, was unavoidable.
It was not intended that all employees who are normally required to be available for work if required would, in fact, be expected to remain available over the period in question. Rather, it was intended that employers would assess their requirements and designate the number actually required, thus freeing others to participate in the festivities if they so desired. This is what in fact occurred throughout the Public Service generally, including employments with a similar condition as to availability as the claimants in the present case.
Since the claimants were treated no differently to those in similar circumstances elsewhere in the Public Service, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th October, 2000______________________
FB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.