FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Retirement age for 8 promotional posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 2002 agreement was reached between the parties in relation to the introduction of a new structure which provided for 4 Sub Station Officers posts and 4 Station Officer posts. These were promotional posts for full-time Fire Fighters.
- The dispute concerns the filling of these posts as the retirement age attached will be 55. Currently, 7 of these Fire Fighters out of the 32 full time Fire fighters with the Council are employed on contracts with a retirement age of 65, 1 Fire Fighter has a contract with a retirement age of 60.
The Union argues that there are senior members of staff interested in promotion who are already over the age of 55 and therefore would not be eligible to apply for these post. The Union believes that precedent exists in the Dublin Fire Service for staff to compete and be appointed to promotional posts and retain their retirement age of 65.
- The issue 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 18th March, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Fire Fighters in question have a retirement age of 65 as they commenced employment with the Council in the 1970's long before the introduction of a retirement age of 55.
2. There is no provision in the Local Government (Superannuation Revision) Consolidation Scheme 1986 that provides for a mandatory retirement age of 55.
3. There is no legal requirement for a retirement age of 55 in a promotional situation. Allowing the claimants in Galway County Council retain their existing retirement age of 65 will have no national implications. Other County Councils, ie Dublin City Council, have promoted Fire Fighters to posts of Sub Officer, Station Officer and District Officer without affecting their retirement age of 65.
4. In April, 2003 the Council, as part of the new structure promoted the then Station Officer to the Post of Project Officer without any change to his existing retirement age of 65.
5. It is unfair and discriminatory to treat the Fire Fighters in this case less favourably. To deny them an opportunity to compete for these promotional positions because they are over the age of 55 is discriminatory on the grounds of age and contravenes the Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004.
6. Three of Fire Fighters have occupied the posts for a number of years and were formally appointed and paid the rate of pay for the grade on the 27th June, 2005. albeit on a temporary basis.
7. They have been involved in training and development while they were over the age of 55 with the intention of advancing themselves within the Fire Service. They should have an equal right to compete for these promotional posts.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 This issue has previously been considered as part of a Labour Court hearing in 1999 (LCR 16319). The claimants in that case argued that they had not been aware prior to applying for the posts of sub officer that a retirement age of 55 applied. No such circumstances apply in this instance.
2. The Union has not disputed that 55 is the normal retirement age for Fire Fighters in Galway County Council. At no time did the Union or any Union representative seek to change the retirement age of 55.
3. The Public Service Pension Commission, on which the Union was represented recommended that "new entrants firefighters should continue to be subject to a retirement age of 55 and there should be no change in special terms as they currently applied to all serving personnel. This confirms the existing compulsory retirement age of 55 for full time firefighters including station officers.
4. Should an exception be made for the claimants in filling of these posts, it will be open to other existing firefighters in the employment of the Council whose terms and conditions specify a retirement age of 55 to seek provision of a retirement age of 65 if they are successful.
5. If the Union's claim is successful then other firefighters nationally would also seek an extension in retirement age. Existing firefighters employed by the Council who joined subsequent to the claimants and whose existing retirement age is 55, could claim that they are being unfairly treated.
6. If the Union wish to change the retirement age for full time firefighters, this is an issue which has to be dealt with nationally. Full time firefighters in Galway constitute less than 3% of the total number of firefighters nationally. To seek such a change through local negotiations is not appropriate.
7. The Council is satisfied that the retirement age provided in the particulars of office for these posts is in accordance with the normal retirement age for full time fighters up to and including the grade of Station Officer.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the retirement age for Fire fighters, per se, is not at issue in this case.
The workers associated with this claim have an individual contractual entitlement to continue in their employment until age 65 (and in one case to age 60). On that account their circumstances are substantially different to those of the generality of Fire Fighters in Galway and in other local authorities. Accordingly this recommendation is based on those unique circumstances and is not to be regarded as having any precedent value in any other case.
In the Court's view it is unreasonable to require the workers concerned to relinquish their current contractual retirement age as a condition of promotion. It is equally unreasonable to exclude those over age 55 from competing for promotion on the sole grounds of their age.
Having regard to these and all other relevant considerations, the Court regards the Union's claim as reasonable and recommends that it be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th_July, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.