FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - 12 RETAINED FIREFIGHTERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim For Relocation Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Clare County Council (represented by the LGMSB) in relation to a claim for a re-location allowance. The Union's position is that staff associated with the move of the Council to new premises received the
allowance but that retained firefighters employed by the Council who assisted with the move were not paid the allowance.
Management's position is that the retained firefighters who assisted with the move were paid for all work done. It further contends that the allowance was payable only to staff who were required to relocate and had suffered disruption as a result.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 5th November 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th May 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Theretained firefighters were required to assist in the move of the Councils premises to its temporary location. All other staff who assisted in the relocation were paid the allowance and it should be applied to the retained firefighters also.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The retained firefighters were paid for all work carried out in relation to the move. As there was no requirement on them to relocate , it is inappropriate that they be paid the relocation allowance.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the agreement entered into in 2005 was lacking in detail as to the grades and categories of staff that were to be encompassed by its terms. There is also an absence of clarity concerning who participated in the work associated with the move. To a considerable extent the difficulties leading to this dispute resulted from that absence of clarity.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Council offer and the Union accepts a payment of €175 per fire-fighter associated with this claim. This payment should be in full and final settlement of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th June 2009______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.