FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR17085/03/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a retained fire fighter by the Council from December 1982 and was subsequently appointed Sub-Officer in December 1987 and Station Officer in 1990. Prior to his retirement, the Union on his behalf sought his retention beyond the normal retirement age of 55. The Council advised that this was not possible. In 2002 the issues of both retirement age and gratuity were the subject of a referral to the Labour Court by the Union. On this occasion the Union were seeking an increase from the current retirement age of 55 to 60. In it's recommendation LCR 17223 issued on the 12th August 2002 the Court recommended that the issue of retirement age be examined by an expert group and that in the interim the parties should agree a uniform extension period of three months to existing members due to retire for the purpose of training new personnel.The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of it's member for payment of compensation arising from compulsory early retirement from the Retained Fire Service. The Council contend that 55 was the retirement age provided for in his contract of employment and therefore, rejects the claim.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 9th August, 2004, as follows:
- “Based on the evidence before me at the hearing, I am satisfied that the worker has no formal entitlement to any additional compensation arising from the recent conditional increase in the retirement age for firefighters.
I am also satisfied that any concession on this claim, on an ex gratia basis or otherwise, would clearly be in conflict with the terms of the relevant Labour Court Recommendation, the subsequent Agreement setting up the Expert Group, and the Report of that Expert Group.
Recommendation
I therefore recommend that the worker and SIPTU should accept that this claim fails”
- The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 13th September, 2004, 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 5th April ,2005
- “Based on the evidence before me at the hearing, I am satisfied that the worker has no formal entitlement to any additional compensation arising from the recent conditional increase in the retirement age for firefighters.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. The workers case was one of the original reasons for the matter of extended service being brought before the Court and therefore, the recommendation LCR 17223 and the Expert Group findings should apply to him.
2. The worker would have been in a position to fulfil the criteria as laid down by the Expert Group for extension of retirement age from a health perspective. The worker showed exemplary service to the County Council during his years of service in the Brigade. This was borne out by the letter issued to him by the Council at the time of his retirement.
3. The County Council should now recognise the commitment of the worker and address this anomaly that has given rise to this case. The Union is seeking an appropriate gesture of goodwill to the worker bearing in mind his potential loss of earnings of three years.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The compulsory retirement age of 55 years for retained firefighters was implemented by the Council in 1956. This has applied to all retained fire fighters recruited since that date.All Fire Officer grades employed since 1985 have been required to retire upon reaching age 55. Persons holding the posts of Sub Officer or Station Officer at that date were allowed remain in their posts until age 65 on a personal to holder basis.
2. The Labour Court recommendation applied only to existing employees of the retained fire service at the 12th August 2002, it did not retrospectively seek to reinstate any member of the service who had retired prior to this date. No other retained fire fighter has sought to be reinstated on the basis of LCR 17223. The report of the Expert Group on retirement age made absolutely no reference to a retrospective application to firefighters who had already retired from the Fire Service.
3. The Council is satisfied that cessation of the workers employment was in accordance with the normal retirement age for retained firefighters. There is no basis established for compensation to be paid in relation to his retirement.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submission of the parties, the Court does not find grounds for altering the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, and decides accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
19th April 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.