FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1. Call-out loss of earnings. 2. Loss of earnings – Dungarvan Hospital Link.
BACKGROUND:
2. The loss of earnings claims relate to 9 fire stations in the Co. Waterford area and affects approximately 55 retained Fire fighters. The first claim refers to oil spills on the County's national primary roads N25 and N72. The Unions' case is that where previously Retained Fire Fighters were called out for oil spillages on these roads now other personnel are being used resulting in a loss of earnings for the Retained Fire Fighters. The Dungarvan Hospital case related to a direct link to the local fire station for calls which resulted from the Hospital's smoke/fire alarm system being activated. In early 2010 the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) engaged with the HSE and the HSE decided that there was no longer a need for this direct link, again resulting in a loss of earnings for the Retained Fire Fighters concerned.
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 15th November, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th December 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Council made no effort to discuss or agree any changes to long-standing procedures for call-outs in relations to both of these issues. The result has been a significant loss of earnings for the workers concerned (the Unions supplied details of the losses to the Court.)
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Many of the oil spill incidents reported turned out to be very minor. As a result of the more efficient management of this incident-type the number of calls has fallen significantly.
2. There was an ongoing occurrence of false alarm call from Dungarvan Hospital. It was the CFO's assessment and HSE's decision to discontinue the direct link between the fire station and the Hospital.
RECOMMENDATION:
There are two claims before the Court as follows:-
1. Claim for loss of earnings relating to turnout to oil-spills,
2. Claim for loss of earnings arising out of the direct link to Dungarvan Hospital being discontinued.
The Court finds as follows in relation to each of these claims:-
Claim 1
In the Court's view the initiative giving rise to this claim was intended to improve the efficiency of the service. It could not properly be described as being a change of policy such as that giving rise to the decision of the Arbitrator in December 2007. The requirement of the retained fire service to turn-out, and consequently the earnings of Retained Fire Fighters, are determined by the number of incidents requiring its attendance. They are, therefore, inherently subject to fluctuation. The decision on whether the attendance of a crew is required at a particular incident is a matter for the Fire Authority and operational decisions in that regard cannot justify a claim for loss of earnings.
Claim 2
The decision to discontinue the direct link in issue was in consequence of a decision of the HSE and not of the Local Authority. Hence, the Local Authority cannot be liable to compensate for any loss suffered in consequence of that decision.
In respect to both claims, the Court does not accept that there is evidence of any significant loss of earnings arising from the changes relied upon by the Unions. In that regard the Court is satisfied that the level of earnings should be judged by reference to total overall earnings. The information available to the Court indicates that any loss of earnings from attendance at incidents has been offset by additional attendance at training.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court does not recommend concessions of the Unions' claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st December, 2011______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.