FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Allowances, Premium Pay/Overtime andContractors' Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Council and the Unions in relation a decision by Management to unilaterally withdraw locally agreed allowances and premium payments and a further claim that Management is in breach of the 1997 Contractors' Agreement that set out the procedures to be used when appointing private contractors.
Management's position is that due to worsening financial circumstances, it reorganised duties within the Councils (County and Town Councils) and removed the need to carry out the work for which the allowances were paid. It further contends that a requirement to reduce payroll costs and a reduction in central funding require greater efficiencies and cost savings going forward.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 28th August, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th December, 2009.
The following is the Court's Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Unions’ claim to have locally agreed allowances restored and retrospection paid. It also sought compensation where regular and rostered overtime had ceased. Furthermore, the Unions sought changes to the agreement on the engagement of private contractors.
The LGMSB representative for Meath County Council submitted that Local Authorities were obliged to achieve a saving of 3% in the 2009 payroll budget. By engagement through the Local Authorities National Partnership Advisory Group (LANPAG) an agreed framework emerged which identified certain areas which could be examined at local level to achieve the 3% pay cut.
The LGMSB stated that in addition to the requirement to reduce payroll by 3%, the Council also suffered a significant reduction in central funding and locally generated income leading to an accumulated deficit of €10 million all of which have resulted in a substantial change to the economic context in which it operates. Therefore, with effect from 5th August 2009 in order to maintain employment where possible, the Council eliminated certain allowances and payments and reduced or eliminated certain overtime and premium payments.
The Unions strenuously objected to the unilateral action taken by the Council where it had, without agreement, ceased to pay allowances and payments locally agreed between the parties over many years.
The Unions submitted to the Court that they were willing to co-operate with the Council on cost reduction measures and were willing to negotiate at local level on some of the items.
They outlined their willingness to consider a buy-out arrangement where certain duties/functions are being eliminated or undertaken in a different way.
The Unions sought compensation where the overtime which had been eliminated had been worked on a regular and rostered basis.
The Council held that the bases for the payments have been eliminated. It accepted that it had been the standard practice in the past to pay compensation in such instances, however, it stated that it had no funding to pay compensation on this occasion. Furthermore, it indicated that the 2010 budget had taken account of the savings made in 2009 due to the elimination of the allowances/payments.
The Court notes that the eliminated allowances/payments formed a significant part of the Claimants’ remuneration package. The Court is of the view that the Council was precipitative in its actions in unilaterally withdrawing the payments. The Court notes that the LANPAG framework agreement provides for the discontinuation of allowances in circumstances where the duties will no longer be performed.
The Court recommends that the parties accept the following dispute resolution process: -
•The Council should pay retrospection of the deducted allowances/payments on 31st January 2010.•In circumstances where there is a discontinuation of duties/functions performed a buy-out of one-and-a-half times’ the annual loss of the relevant allowances/payments listed below should be made in three equal instalments, as follows: -
(a) County Council Allowances/ Payments: -Gate Allowances
- Opening Public Conveniences Payments
Fairgreen (Navan) Clean-Up Allowance
Drivers’ Allowance
- -one third on 31st December 2010
-one third on 31st December 2011
-one third on 31st December 2012
•Where there is a disagreement concerning the elimination of duties/functions listed below the parties should enter into immediate discussions on the items and in the meantime the Council should restore the associated allowances/payments. However, if the issues are not resolved by 31st January 2010, the outstanding issues should be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
- (i) County Council Allowances/Payments:-
Meal and Tea Allowance
Eating-on-Site and Tea Allowance
Call-out Allowances
Driving Allowances
Green Machine
Driving/Heating Allowance
Clean-Up Time
Outside Section Allowance
Flexibility Allowance
Travel Time (Environment Section)
(ii) Town Councils’ Allowances/ Payments:-
Winter Gritting Allowance
Handheld Allowance
Unsocial Hours Allowance
Sewer Allowance
Weekend Clean-Up (Trim and Navan) Allowance•The revised mobile and landline telephone arrangements to be put in place should be finalised by the parties during the course of the discussions referred to above.
Engagement of Private Contractors
The Unions submitted that the Council had breached the 1997 national Agreement on the engagement of private contractors.
They pointed out that the Council had conceded these breaches and had undertaken to appoint a Senior Manager with responsibility for liaising with the Union Group when appointing private contractors. However, the Unions contended that this was insufficient and now wish to have Meath County Council sign up to an agreement which is in place in Dublin City Council and a number of other Local Authorities (referred to as “the Dublin Protocol”).
The Council accepted that the 1997 Agreement had been breached and has committed to ensuring that this will not happen in the future. It stated that the Dublin Protocol has not been agreed nationally and has no standing outside those Local Authorities where it has been agreed. It stated that the 1997 Agreement was examined in 2005 and in 2008 SIPTU submitted a draft revised document to the LGMSB through the Local Authority National Council (LANC).
Having considered this claim, the Court recommends that the Council adheres strictly to the nationally agreed procedures under the 1997 Agreement for the engagement of private contractors.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd December 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.