FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay with regard to regularisation of allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case concerns the regularisation of allowances paid to staff in the Roads Section of the Council. Two groups, who received a Concrete allowance and a Ganger Sheet Allowance, began receiving the allowance while on annual leave. The Union maintains that, following a comprehensive agreement in 2009, the Council conceded the Union's claim to have payment of these allowances on annual leave applied retrospectively. The Union claims that in 2010 management conceded the claim for retrospection for the allowance but then in January, 2011, stated that it would not be paying the retrospection due to its deteriorating finances.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th May, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th August, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union entered into an agreement with the Council in good faith. The claim for retrospection was conceded and quantified but never paid.
2. The Council has consistently refused the Union's requests to have agreed minutes kept of meetings. This means that the only records of meetings on this issue are the Union's own but they clearly show that the Council intended to pay the retrospection
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council has honoured all agreements entered into with the Union in respect of all staff. It cannot enter into any arrangements which would have the effect of treating the Roads staff more favourably than other staff
2. The Union made a claim for retrospection for payment of the allowance during annual leave. The Council agreed to look at the claim as part of a working group involving the Union but group was never established and at no time was the claim conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
A claim for the payment of retrospection, such as that in issue in this case, is a cost- increasing claim, the serving and processing of which is precluded by the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. While the claim was initiated before the conclusion of that Agreement, its referral to the Court constitutes a processing of the claim.
However, the Union's position is that an agreement was concluded with the Council on the matter in dispute and that it is now merely seeking the implementation of the terms of that agreement. In the Court's view if the Council freely concluded an agreement in the terms claimed by the Union it cannot rely on the PSA to resile from that agreement. The Council position is that no such agreement ever came into being.
It is agreed between the parties that the normal practice in this employment is that the terms of industrial relations agreements are set out in writing by the Council and exchanged with the other side. It is accepted that this did not happen in this case.
The practice of the Council in that regard is highly desirable and can avoid the type of confusion which clearly arose in this case. While the Court can understand how the Union may have come to believe that its claim had been conceded, it is equally clear that no formal agreement came into being within the normal procedures used in the Council for that purpose.
In these circumstances the Court cannot hold that a formal agreement on retrospection came into being between the parties. In these circumstances, the Court cannot recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th August, 2011.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.