FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Standardisation of payment systems for Retained Fire Fighters.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August 2010 Management presented an action plan identifying 19 measures which it wished to see addressed. Of these 11 were under the heading of Productivity and Performance. Specifically one of these referenced the Retained Fire Fighter service under the heading of "Standardisation of Payment Systems."
In January 2011 the details of the proposal emerged. Management's proposal was to "standardise" the hourly fire fee payments downward to the minimum applicable in any county i.e. to the nearest minute. In effect Management wants to pay specifically for time worked (i.e.to the nearest minute) and eliminate other arrangements which can allow for more beneficial payments.
SIPTU considered the proposal to be an interference with the mechanism of calculation of the basic pay of Fire Fighters and had the direct effect of a serious cut to the earnings of those involved.
The dispute 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 May 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd August 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that Management's proposal is not encompassed under clauses 1.4 or 5.18 of the Public Service Agreement (PSA) and is in effect a reduction in pay.
2. Each individual Local Authority has it own application of the payment system for the "cut off" of the payment period as it depends on the circumstances of the call. Introducing this proposal outside of a clear position on what happens between an incident being closed off and the crew/s returning to the station and being ready to go again is not acceptable.
3. The payment system, if it is to be "standardised" should be done in a fashion where all aspects of the system are clear.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management maintains that its proposals are encompassed under clauses 1.4, 1.8 and 5.18 of the Public Service Agreement.
2. Management contends that all parties to the PSA accepted that efficiencies needed to be maximised and productivity in the use of resources greatly increased through revised work practices and other initiatives. The implementation of this proposal will assist the local government sector in implementing the objectives of the agreement.
3. At conciliation the Board proposed to compensate for any loss in accordance with the methodology established under the PSA, the actual loss to be established after the implementation of the change has been in operation for 12 months.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
The parties have asked the Court to recommend on a dispute regarding a proposal by Management to standardise one aspect of the many different payments systems in place in the retained fire services. Management relies on Paragraph 1.8 of the Public Service Agreement in support of its case.
Paragraph 1.8 of the PSA says
“To the greatest extent possible, there will be standardised terms and condition of employment across the Public Service, with the focus initially within sectors.”
The Court is referred to Clause 5.18 of the agreed Action Plan for the Local Authorities Sector that provides: -
- Standardisation of payment systems, methods etc for Retained Fire-fighters to ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources
Management submitted that each local fire service currently operates its own payment system. This is inefficient and costly. Significant reductions in IT support costs can be achieved by standardising on one system and applying it nationwide. Management further argues that in order to maximise the benefits of moving to a national system it must simultaneously introduce a standard national method of determining pay entitlements.
At present all fire fighters are paid from the moment they are notified of a call until they are discharged after the mobilisation has ended that the equipment has been made ready for the next call.
In determining their pay entitlement in respect of the mobilisation incident some fire fighters, after they have been discharged or stood down, are paid to the nearest minute, some to the nearest fifteen minutes, some to the nearest thirty minutes and some to the nearest hour. Management is seeking to standardise payment to the nearest minute.
The Union side is not opposed to standardisation of the IT systems. However it argued that any standardisation of payment arrangements should be delayed until after the stand down system itself is standardised.
Findings of the Court
The Court notes that currently there are 24 fire authorities within the state that provide fire services on a retained basis. Each of these operates a separate computer based pay system. These systems give rise to costly inefficiencies that management wishes to eliminate through standardisation.
The Public Service Agreement at Clause 1.10provides “inter-operability and standardisation of specifications and systems (hardware and software) will be mandatory both to achieve cost savings and facilitate integrated approaches.”
The Court therefore is satisfied that the standardisation of the IT systems in the retained fire service is provided for within the Public Service Agreement.
Both sides advised the Court that fire fighters are paid to either the nearest minute, quarter, half or full hour at the termination of an incidence of mobilisation. As part of the standardisation of IT systems management sought to have payment to the nearest minute applied universally as a replacement for the current arrangements. Management drew the Court’s attention to clause 5.18 of the Public Service Agreement that provides
- 5.18 The Local Government sector, examples of productivity include:
The Union side contended that the differing pay arrangements on stand-down after an incidence of mobilisation was inextricably related to local practices and that until these were themselves standardised it was inappropriate to move on the introduction of a uniform pay system.
Findings of the Court
The Court does not accept the Union’s argument that movement to a single payment system is contingent on a similar movement towards uniformity in stand down procedures. The two issues are not interdependent. The issue before the Court only arises after the decision has been taken to stand the crew down no matter how that decision is made. The question of whether a stood down crew should be paid to the nearest minute or hour is clearly not related to nor dependent upon the manner in which the decision to stand it down is made.
The Court is also satisfied that the Public Service Agreement provides as follows at Paragraph 1.8“to the greatest extent possible, there will be standardised terms and conditions of employment across the Public Service, with the focus initially within sectors.”
This clearly encompasses the instant case where there are widely varying payment arrangements in place for people doing identical work in the same or similar circumstances.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union accept and cooperate with the technology needed to standardise pay management systems in the retained fire service.
Meaning of Standardisation
However standardisation does not mean a drive to the lowest common denominator. The Court takes the view that the parties when moving towards standardisation of terms and conditions of employment must take a range of factors into account.
In this case Management is contending that payment to the nearest minute is the most cost efficient and has the benefit of linking pay to hours worked. Whilst these are important they do not constitute an exhaustive list of factors to be considered.
In this case the Court was presented with no evidence to support the contention that Management’s proposed solution was the most cost efficient or that other solutions would be more expensive, impractical, undesirable, inappropriate or inefficient.
Furthermore the Court notes that of the 23 Councils on which information was provided 6 paid to the nearest minute, 4 to the nearest half hour, 4 to the nearest hour and 10 to the nearest fifteen minutes.
The Court takes the view that the most common arrangement within the service at present is to pay to the nearest 15 minutes. In the absence of any evidence that would indicate that this is an inappropriate, inefficient, undesirable or more expensive option than that proposed by Management, the Court takes the view that this is the base around which standardisation should take place.
The Court so recommends.
The Court also notes that the level of awareness amongst the retained fire service of the current discussions and the imminence of change may not be consistent with the commitments regarding change set out in the Public Service Agreement. Accordingly the Court recommends that the implementation date for the changes set out in this recommendation be consistent with a process of communication that will outline to each individual, through their own local fire service, the implications for themselves personally and for the functioning of the local station so as to enable them accommodate to the new arrangements in an orderly and responsible manner.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th August 2011______________________
MGDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.