FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROSCOMMON COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Non-participation in breathing apparatus recertification training C-115953-11.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Council's decision to remove Workers from the payroll for refusing to attend training. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th June, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th September, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Council made changes to the way training is delivered.
2 The Council was informed that the Workers were awaiting the outcome of national discussions on this issue.
3 The Council should not, therefore, have removed the Workers from the payroll.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Council is obliged to ensure that the Workers receive the appropriate breathing apparatus training.
2 The Workers are obliged to cooperate with the Council's efforts to provide them with this training.
3. The Council's decision to remove the Workers from the payroll for refusing to cooperate was proportionate and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has reflected carefully on the submissions of both of the parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the basic position advanced by each of the parties is not wholly sustainable. In light of the Agreement reached in the LRC on 22ndNovember 2011 Management had the option of deferring the training course scheduled for November 23rd2011 to allow the workers affected absorb the import of the terms agreed. Equally the workers involved should have cooperated with the scheduled training course, under protest if necessary. The Court notes however that they remained available to respond in the normal way to any call out that arose during the course of the period during which they were removed from the payroll.
As both parties were culpable for the subsequent course of events the Court recommends that the workers involved, in the unique circumstances of this case, be paid 70% of the losses they incurred as a result of the decision to remove them from the payroll.
No conclusions should be drawn from this part payment regarding the degree of culpability of either party to this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th November, 2012______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.