FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SIPTU / UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Fire Alerter either A or B
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Council's decision to change the rostering for attendance of both sub-officers at all chimney fires and other smaller incidents. 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 12th January, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th October, 2012.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Employer is seeking unilaterally to change the Workers' terms and conditions of employment.
2 The Workers have already suffered a substantial loss of earnings due to the introduction of wage reductions in the public service.
3 The Workers' pay is protected by the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The deployment of staff is predominately an operational matter to be determined by management.
2 There is no operational requirement to have these junior officers turning out to every incident.
3. Any resulting loss of earnings can be compensated for in line with the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Unions’ claim on behalf of two sub-station officers that they should be entitled to retain both A and B Alerters and accordingly attend to all call-outs. The Council submitted to the Court that the rostering of the sub-station officers should operate the basis that they on either an A or a B Alerter and not both. It submitted that this change would bring them in line with all other sub-station officers in the County and would restore the normal operating procedures for chimney fires and other small incidents.
The Unions submitted that the proposed change would lead to a significant loss of earnings and sought to retain the arrangements for the two officers in question.
The Court notes that the practice of operating both the A and B Alerters inadvertently evolved for the two sub-station officers in question, however, since February 2008 the Council has been seeking to change the practice due to its operational requirements as it no longer considered it a requirement.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court recommends that the two sub-station officers should accept that the practice of responding to both an A and a B Alerter should cease, they should be rostered on either an A or a B Alerter with effect from 1stNovember 2012 and they should be compensated for the loss of earnings resulting from the change. The Council should assess the earnings of the two sub-station officers after the new arrangements are in place for a period of 12 months and where a loss is demonstrated by reference to the average annual call-out arrangements in the previous three years then they should be compensated on the basis of one-and-a-half time the actual loss. This should be paid in two equal phases, the first being paid within one months of the assessment being carried out and the second should be paid six months thereafter.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th November, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.