FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY PAUL CLIFFORD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-051661-IR-07.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU on behalf of ten retained firefighters for compensation for what it claims is financial loss incurred following the introduction of C.A.M.P. East (Central Automated Mobilisation Programme).
Prior to the introduction of C.A.M.P.East the Council employed a full-time telephone operator for the fire service who retired in May 2001. An interim arrangement was then put in place whereby two firefighters carried out the telephone duties on a shared basis and were paid the hourly drill rate for same.
The two individual firefighters retired in June and September 2002. As the introduction of C.A.M.P. was believed to be imminent another interim arrangement was proposed whereby the telephone duty was shared between a number of firefighters. Initially this number was five but subsequently became ten firefighters.
C.A.M.P. East was implemented in Monaghan in April 2006. Local discussions took place between the Union and Management to progress a claim for compensation for the loss of earnings incurred by the retained firefighters concerned. Management tabled a settlement proposal which was not acceptable to the union members.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 16th January, 2008. He recommended acceptance of the formulae proposed by the Council but that those with less than one years' service commitment had no entitlement.
The Union, on behalf of its members appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 26th February, 2008, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd July, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that during a four year period the members concerned had established a level of earnings for which compensation for such loss is justified.
2. Monaghan County Council's initial proposals for settlement of this claim were given careful consideration but were rejected as the level of compensation offered did not reflect the commitment given in the provision of the telephone service from 2002 to 2006.
3. The principal factors which have influenced the decision to appeal the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner are that a) the level of compensation recommended does not meet our members' reasonable expectations in this regard, and b) the outstanding matter of retained firefighters with less than one years' service commitment has not been addressed.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council contends that its offer to SIPTU in all the circumstances of this case represents a fair and reasonable proposal. The requirement for the service is redundant thus a payment based on redundancy payments is a logical solution.
2. The Council entered into an interim arrangement with the firefighters in good faith. There was never an expectation that this payment nor the duties for which it was paid would continue into the future.
3. The Council submits that it has put forward an offer which fairly reflects the circumstances of this case, based upon 2 weeks pay for each year of service, for an additional duty. The Council subsequently accepted the Rights Commissioner's recommendation which increased the compensation level offered to four of the ten firemen by 40% and one fireman by 50%.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court notes that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was improved by the Council. The Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, as so amended should be upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
10th July, 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.