FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PETER O'BRIEN B.L. INSTRUCTED BY AARON MCKENNA SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Recognising previous experience for Salary Progression.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Dublin City Council (represented by the LGMSB) and the worker in relation to the alleged refusal of management to accept previous service in another country for incremental credit purposes. The worker's position is that his previous experience as a firefighter/ paramedic in the United Kingdom should be reckonable in his current employment with Dublin Fire Brigade. Management's position is that this issue remains outstanding at national level but as things currently stand it cannot be addressed on the basis of the current Public Service Agreement (PSA 2010-2014).
On the 30th November 2011, the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1st March, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 This matter is an individual issue. The worker is legally entitled to have his previous service in another jurisdiction recognised by his current employer. The absence of such entitlements cannot be justified on the basis that it will result in a cost to the employer or that it is at variance with the current Public Service Agreement (PSA)
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 This is a collective issue concerning the treatment of individuals on recruitment. Management are obliged to apply the terms of the current PSA which precludes making or processing cost increasing claims during the currency of the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case comes before the Court pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 – 1990 and has been considered solely in that context.
Currently Dublin City Council recognises service as a fire fighter with another fire authority within the state for the purpose of assimilating staff to the pay scale following success at an interview for a vacancy within the service. The Council does not accord similar recognition to comparable service with a public fire authority in another E.U. member state.
The complainant in this case applied for and was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Dublin Fire Service following a number of years service with a public fire authority in the UK. When assimilating him to the pay scale Dublin City Council refused to give him credit for his UK service. He submitted that the Council had given another fire fighter credit for service with the fire authorities in Northern Ireland. He further submitted that Dublin City Council is required by virtue of Article 45 of the TFEU to treat all E.U. citizens equally with respect to prior service with a public fire authority. He submitted that the Council’s refusal to award him credit for his service with the UK fire service was contrary to law and a denial of his rights and entitlements. The Complainant asked the Court to make a recommendation to address what he submitted was both inequitable and contrary to the provisions of European Law.
The Council submitted that the matter was under discussion with the relevant trade unions until the talks stalled following decisions taken by Government to deal with the crisis in the public finances. The Council further submitted that the claim was now cost increasing in nature and was contrary to the provisions of the Public Service Agreement and could not be conceded.
The Court notes that discussions on changes to the current arrangements for assimilating newly appointed fire fighters to the pay scale were wide ranging and covered a number of areas that could properly be categorised as cost increasing. However the Court takes the view that a claim to correct a practice or procedure that has the effect of denying a person their entitlements under national or European law could not be defeated on the grounds that it may have cost increasing implications within the normal meaning of that term.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the relevant trade union and employer representatives meet to identify the extent to which current pay scale assimilation practices within the Fire Services conflict with the provisions of national and or European law and make any appropriate changes necessary to bring them into compliance therewith. This should be done as a matter of urgency. When that exercise has been completed the details of the complaint currently before the Court should be addressed and resolved in that context.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
10th April 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.