FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Time off in lieu.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members employed by Limerick City Council as Fire Fighters. The claim is for time off in lieu while off duty for attendance at:-
(i) meetings in respect of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW)
(ii) other industrial relation's meetings from 1999 to 2001
(iii) all future Union/Management meetings.
The Council rejects the claim stating that it has made a reasonable offer which was rejected by the Union.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relation's Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of April, 2002, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relation's Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of November, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to the nature of the work of the Fire Fighters it is not always possible to arrange for meetings to take place while representatives are on duty.
2. The workers concerned make themselves available to attend meetings while off duty at very short notice and should be compensated.
3. The claim for time off in lieu for time spent at Union/Management meetings is not excessive and should be conceded.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Union/Management meetings at all levels are often conducted outside normal working hours requiring either side to travel long distances. No compensation is paid in these cases. To concede to the Union's claim would set a precedent with implications for all groups of staff.
2. Management is satisfied that the issue has been dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. The offer made is reasonable and should be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
There are two aspects to the Union's claim, namely previous meetings, including those associated with PCW and other industrial relations issues on the one hand and future agreements on the other.
The Court considers that the averaging approach proposed by Management in relation to PCW meetings is reasonable in the circumstances. However, the Court recommends that, on a pragmatic basis, the offer be modified to one of an average six hours per meeting. The Court notes that the original offer related to PCW meetings only. In these circumstances, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in so far as it relates to non PCW meetings.
With regard to the allocation of time for union/management meetings in the future, the Court is not in a position to make a definitive recommendation as to what could be regarded as reasonable, based on the information available at this time.
The Court recommends that the parties appoint an agreed facilitator/assessor to assist in identifying the actual amount of time that is reasonable, having regard to the normal requirements for representation and attendance at such meetings.
The facilitator/assessor should be appointed as soon as possible. In default of agreement the Court will make a nomination.
The Court further recommends that the process should be completed within a time frame of three months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th December, 2002______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.