LCR20038

SUBJECT:
1. Roster for Single Pump Attendance


BACKGROUND:

2. This case concerns a dispute between South Tipperary County Council (represented by the LGMSB) and SIPTU and UNITE in relation to changes to attendance patterns of retained Firefighters and tenders at certain types of fires. Normally, there are two tenders (pumps) dispatched to fires other than chimney fires which only require one tender. Management have proposed that the use of only one tender be extended to other types of small fires also. The Union rejects management's claim on the basis that there is a need for two tenders on site to provide protection against constant anti social behaviour directed at the firefighters. The Union further contends that changes to rostering should be the subject of discussions betwen the parties and not unilaterally imposed. It is also seeking that if the changes are introduced the workers be compensated in the normal way.

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 October, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th March, 2011.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3 1 It is unsafe that one tender be dispatched to larger fires when they occur. Apart from the risks involved in putting out the fires, there is a significant risk to the firefighters as a result of anti social behaviour and attacks directed at them. It is essential that the second tender is present to protect the firefighters while they carry out their duties.

2 Management cannot unilaterally impose the changes to the roster. Such changes should be the subject of negotiations between the parties and appropriate compensation paid when the agreed changes result in losses of earnings.

MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:

4 1 Management must seek to effectively manage its resources in deploying tenders. It is unsustainable for two tenders to automatically attend a small fire on the basis of additional retained firefighters being called out and the costs that this incurs.

2 The officer in charge will decide on arrival if a second tender is required and it will be dispatched if necessary. Management do not wish to endanger the lives of its firefighters but cannot continue to send out two tenders where they are not both required.

3 The anti social behaviour, which the Union contend is a serious problem, does not happen often. In situations where it does occur the firefigthers are obliged to call the police and to wait on their arrival if their safety is compromised in any way.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is noted that the Union are apposed to the Council's proposals on grounds relating to health and safety matters and loss of potential earnings for the fire crews affected.

Matters relating to health and safety are outside the Court's remit and, accordingly, the Court cannot offer a definitive view on this aspect of the case.


It seems to the Court that the deployment of resources within the fire service is predominately an operational matter to be determined by management. However, it is noted that the issue before the court is governed by a collective agreement which the Council wishes to change. It is also accepted that the change, if implemented, will result in a loss of earnings for those involved.

The Court recommends that the proposed change should proceed immediately and that the parties should continue to monitor the safety and health aspects arising. With regard to the loss of earnings aspect of the case, the court recommends that the earnings of those affected be individually assessed after the new arrangement has been in place for a period of 12 months. If a loss of earnings is demonstrated by reference to average annual earnings in the three previous years, it should be compensated for on the basis of 1.5 times the actual loss. The amount payable in each case should be paid in two equal phases. The first phase should be paid within one month of the assessment referred to above being carried out. The second phase should be paid six months thereafter.

This recommendation is made on the basis of full cooperation with the new rostering arrangements.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
4th April 2011______________________
AHChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.