FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Various Issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions on behalf of approximately 159 members currently employed in Clerical and Operational roles. The dispute relates specifically to outstanding issues which remain unresolved following the Council's decision to transfer its refuse waste collection operations to Greyhound Recycling and Recovery.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. Following Conciliation, a set of proposals were drafted by the Council, which outlined eighteen seperate issues arising from the transfer of the waste collection service.The Unions rejected the Council's proposals and agreement could not be reached.The issues remaining in contention between the parties include a claim for retention of acting-up payments and compensation for loss of allowances in relation to keyholder allowance, meal allowance and compensation for loss of overtime. In terms of Operational staff, the Unions contend that the Employer has reneged on a longstanding agreement known locally as the "Cleansing Deal" which came into effect in 1979 and which continues to form a part of pay calculations for the Operational staff involved in this dispute.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th July, 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th July, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions on behalf of their members are seeking compensation for the loss of allowances including a meal allowance and a keyholder allowance, which were previously paid to the applicable staff.
2. The Unions are seeking the retention of acting-up allowances that have been paid to staff who have held long term acting-up positions for an extended period of time.
3. The Unions contend that acting-up allowances should be paid to staff in acting roles until such a time as vacancies arise or until discussions have concluded at National level.
4. The Unions contend that the "Cleansing Deal" forms part of weekly pay calculations and cannot be altered under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (PSA).
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is bound by the terms of the PSA . Management contend that they have at all times acted in accordance with the guidelines of the PSA during the transfer process.
2. The Employer is not in a financial position to concede the Unions' claims for compensation particularly in circumstances where the requirement to pay allowances no longer exists.
3. The Employer has proposed to offer compensation by means of a buy-out of the "Cleansing Deal".
RECOMMENDATION:
- This issue before the Court arose from the implementation of a decision by Dublin City Council to discontinue the direct provision of a domestic and commercial waste collection service. This decision was the subject of a previous Court investigation which resulted in Recommendation LCR20214. The issues now before the Court relate to the redeployment of staff previously employed in the delivery of the discontinued waste management service, either as operational staff or in administrative / clerical roles.
The operations staff received additional pay, equal to 3.75 hours pay per week, over and above the rate applicable to their grade, for working in the service. The issue now in dispute between the parties is whether this additional pay is part of basic pay or whether it is in the nature of an allowance. If it is held to be part of basic pay the Unions contend that it is protected by the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 which provides that basic pay cannot be further reduced. If it is held to be in the nature of an allowance it can be discontinued subject to the payment of appropriate compensation.
In the case of administrative staff, there are a number of allowances that have been discontinued and in respect of which the Unions claim compensation. The Management reject these claims on the basis that the allowances are not of a type that would normally attract compensation. There is a further issue concerning discontinued overtime which the Unions say is regular and rostered and should attract compensation. The Management contend that this overtime is voluntary in nature and have rejected the claim for compensation.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows: -
Operational Staff
The Court notes that the payments in issue in this part of the claim originated in an agreement concluded in 1979 by which an allowance in the form of additional overtime payments were made in return for certain flexibilities required in the running of the refuse collection service. Having examined the carefully argued submissions advanced by the Unions, the Court is not satisfied that these payments have been formally consolidated into the basic pay of the workers concerned over subsequent years. In these circumstances they cannot be regarded as part of basic pay for the purposes of the PSA. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Unions accept the Management’s offer to pay compensation at the rate of 1.5 times its annual value on discontinuance of this payment.
The Court notes that some of the displaced staff have been redeployed to other duties which continue to attract payments equal to those in issue. The Court further recommends that as vacancies arise in these other areas in which these payments continue to apply, those vacancies should first be offered to those displaced staff who have been redeployed to other areas.
Administrative Staff
There are a variety of allowances in issue in this aspect of the claim. The Court does not believe that any of these allowances are of a type that would normally attract compensation on being discontinued. Nor does the Court believe that the overtime referred to in the Unions claim could be regarded as regular and rostered as that expression is normally understood.
It is noted that at Conciliation the Council made an offer of an ex-gratia payment to the administrative staff concerned. The Court recommends that offer be enhanced, on the basis that it will be in full and final settlement of all outstanding claims:-- •Revenue Staff in Rathmines: €3,000
•Bin Management Office: €1,200
In the case of those previously in long term acting positions the Court further recommends that in the event of a national agreement being reached on long term actors the position of those associated with this aspect of the claim should be reconsidered in light of the terms of any such agreement. - •Revenue Staff in Rathmines: €3,000
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
31st July 2012______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.