FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEITRIM COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Issues in relation to breathing apparatus refresher training
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Leitrim County Council (represented by the LGMSB) and SIPTU in relation to the possible outcomes of failing the breathing apparatus refresher training course. The Union's contention is that an agreement concluded between the parties (previously agreed at Conciliation) allows for those unsuccessful at the refresher course to be offered the appropriate remedial advice on the day of the course and that they would not be stood down from duty. Management's view is that it is not always practicable to resolve issues on the day and that the agreement allows for unsuccessful candidates to be stood down until the issues are resolved.
The matter was not resolved at local level and was referred to the Court on 18th July, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th August, 2011
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The course is a refresher course to update the skills previously learned. It should not include a fail option which can result in firefighters being stood down from duty.
2 A previous agreement reached under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission provided that difficulties occurring during the refresher course would be dealt with on the day as they arise, where possible.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management has a duty of care to ensure that those involved in breathing aparatus training are sufficiently competent to undertake their duties. If they are not competent in a particular area of their work they are stood down from that particular operation only and are reinstated once the refresher course has been passed.
2 The agreement concluded between the parties allows for difficulties to be addressed on the day of the course where practicable but it may not always be possible for operational reasons for issues to be dealt with as they arise. For this reason, unsuccessful participants can be stood down for a short priod of time until the issues have been addressed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this dispute.
The level of health and safety training appropriate in the fire service are matters that are not proper to this Court and must be decided by the appropriate authorities in accordance with the relevant statutes and recognised best practice.
The employment, as distinct from the operational, consequences for any member of staff who does not meet the levels of competence required by the relevant authorities are matters on which this Court has a statutory function to discharge.
In this regard the Court notes that the parties, in the course of the hearing of the case, agreed on the following points:-
•The agreement reached between the parties under the auspices of the LRC on 14th March 2011remains in place and governs the management of disputes arising out of any Breathing Apparatus Refresher Training Courses conducted in Leitrim County Council until such time as a replacement national agreement is concluded.
•That Breathing Apparatus Refresher Training is a mandatory requirement for all members of the retained fire service in Leitrim County Council.
•All operational fire fighters will attend such training courses as required by the fire authorities.
•Members of staff who do not demonstrate a satisfactory level of competence in any aspect of the course will be referred for further training with a view to bringing their skills up to the standard required.
•Management is committed to addressing any competency deficit in the shortest time possible and will make every effort to resolve the issue before the end of the Course, where possible.
•Where, for good reason, it is not possible to do so before the end of the Course management will arrange appropriate training normally within a four to six week period to facilitate the fire fighter(s) to acquire the relevant competencies.
•In the interim the fire fighter(s) will not be assigned to duties for which they have not been deemed competent. However they will be assigned to any breathing apparatus duties they have been deemed competent to perform.
•Both sides accepted that such restrictions on deployment are not disciplinary in nature and as a consequence the individuals concerned will suffer no loss of income nor benefits while they continue to co-operate with the training programmes designed to address the identified competency deficiencies.
The Court recommends that the dispute between the parties be resolved on the basis of the LRC agreement as clarified above, that training resume immediately and that all fire fighters co-operate fully therewith as required by the relevant authorities.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th September 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.