FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Reduction in on-call earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns an on call allowance payable to Senior Fire Officers in Meath County Council who operate an on call roster. An agreement was reached setting out specific criteria for the operation of the roster, that the optimum roster was one in four and that all Senior Fire Officers would partake in the roster equally. Initially there were three Senior Fire Officers operating the roster and they received the higher allowance. When a fourth Officer was included on the roster, the Union claimed that the higher allowance be retained by the three officers on a red-circled basis.
The Company disagree with the claim on the basis that the payment of the allowance is the subject of national pay talks and any proposed changes should be raised at national level.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th July, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th October, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is not an attempt to undermine the Agreement. It is accepted that the lower allowance is applicable to new participants in the system but "red-circled" arrangements are not uncommon and widely recognised as appropriate in certain circumstances.
2. The Agreement has operated flexibly in Meath County Council with local discretion to accommodate local conditions. There were several other cases where the higher allowance was retained in such circumstances.
3. The officers in question would suffer a significant drop in remuneration when the allowance is reduced to accommodate a fourth officer. The officers, based on previous custom and practise, assumed that in the event of a fourth person coming on board,the higher allowance would be retained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's proposal would be inequitable and impossible to operate as it would pay three officers on the roster a different rate than the fourth officer.
2. All of the officers concerned were aware of the national agreement and knew it provided for operation on a one in four basis.
3. The claim by the Union is cost increasing and precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute arose over the reduction in payment of an on-call allowance paid to senior fire officers in October 2002. The Union’s position is that the allowance should be red-circled for the three officers in dispute. The Council maintain that the reduction in the allowance was carried out in accordance with the national agreement entitled “Procedure for Operating Senior Fire Officers Rostering Agreement”.
The Union stated that while the reduction in the allowance may have been applied based on a strict interpretation of the agreement, this agreement had been interpreted more flexibly in similar cases in three other Local Authorities.
The Court notes the Union’s concern that this allowance is pensionable; such a reduction has a significant impact as the allowance has been paid and consequently the three claimants have made contributions on the allowance for pension purposes for a number of years.
The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions. The Court accepts that the Council’s application of the payment in relation to the reduction of the allowance when the manning increased from three to four, is in accordance with the agreement. However, the agreement is silent on any reduction in the allowance and its consequential effect on pension benefits. The Court is of the view that to reduce the allowance in pension benefit after so many years of pension contributions on the higher allowance would be unfair, and therefore in response to the Union's claim recommends that the Council should ensure that the full allowance will be taken into account in the calculation of pension benefits.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th November, 2004______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.