FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WEXFORD 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 IR9404/02/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim relates to a loss of earnings incurred by fire fighters in the Enniscorthy Fire Station resulting from the introduction of a centralised telephone response system (CAMP) in 2000. Previously, station and sub-station officers were obliged to provide the necessary telephone cover for which an annual telephone allowance was paid. With the introduction of CAMP the allowance ceased and these officers were paid a compensation package. The Union's case is that the 10 fire-fighters in Enniscorthy also covered the telephones when the station/sub station officers were not available, and the Union is now seeking that they should also be compensated. The Council does not believe that any compensation is due.
The dispute (along with a claim for payment of hours for travelling to training courses) was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:-
"Having carefully considered the submissions of both sides, I do not recommend in favour of the Union's claim in either case".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 25th of September, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of February, 2004, in Wexford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1.The 10 firefighters covered telephone duties at the Fire Station on a systematic basis. They rostered for telephone duties and their wage sheets were marked for "phone duty".
2. For the period 1997-2000, the fire-fighters worked amounts ranging from 9 - 307 hours. The Council has acknowledged that the workers were performing a duty as it made a financial offer to them (which was rejected).
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The firefighters were not required to provide any telephone cover. They did so on a purely voluntary and ad-hoc basis.
2. Over the 3 year period 1997 - 2000, the firefighters only provided approximately 5% of the total emergency cover time required. They were paid at the normal "drill rate" of pay and were fully compensated for their duties.
DECISION:
Fire fighters sought payment of compensation of loss of earnings following the installation of a centralised emergency telephone response system in 2000. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, notes that management recognise that there is some value in the claim as an offer was made to the fire fighters to pay 5% of the overall compensation payment as paid to two station officers. This was unacceptable to the Union.
The Court is of the view that as the overtime involved was not regular and rostered there is no basis for the Union's claim.
However, in all the circumstances of this case and given the cooperation shown over the years by the fire fighters, the Court recommends that the County Council should pay a sum of €1000 which should be divided as the Union deem fit.
Accordingly, the Court overturns the Rights Commissioners recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th March, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.