FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR15308/03/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a worker who is a retained Fire fighter with Sligo County Council since 1985. In his capacity as Shop Stewart he was released without loss of pay to attend a Union conference from 1st - 3rd November, 2002. The Union are seeking that the worker be paid for a number of call outs which took place during that period which he would have had to attend. The Council submits that the customary practice in these situations is to pay the retainer only. The issue could not be resolved at local level and was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 22nd October, 2003, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
“Based on the evidence it does not appear that a previous claim has ever been made in not dissimilar circumstances. I do not recommend in favour of the Union".
On the 1st December, 2003, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th January, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union have an excellent relationship with the County Council which benefits the workers and their employers. The Council has released workers to attend training courses, conferences, etc. withoutloss of pay.
2. A letter from the County Council to the Union dated the 22nd October, 2002, states that the Council has not objection to the worker being released "without loss of pay to attend a Regional Delegate Conference".
3. Given this guarantee, the worker was entitled to expect that he would not suffer any loss. However, he did suffer a loss, if he had not been released without pay he would have attended those calls and received payment for them.
COUNTY COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Compensation for loss of earnings is not justified in this case, retained firemen are guaranteed their retainer and are not guaranteed any specific amounts in respect of call-outs. Fire fees can only be paid to attendees at fires.
2. It is custom and practice that only the retainer is paid where the employee is released without loss of pay. Staff have been released and have not sought payment.
3. There are incidents where the Fire Authority responds to a fire-call for which the public are billed. It would be unfair to impose additional costs on the public where a fire-fighter did not attended the call-out.
4. Concession of this claim would have national implications and would set a dangerous precedent.
DECISION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that there is no precedent for the payment of fire fees when not available for on call. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that there is no merit in the claim for payment of fire fees while the retained fire-fighter was in attendance at the three day conference. The Court upholds the findings and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th March, 2004______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.