FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/DUBLIN FIRE BRIGADE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Car Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The current dispute has been ongoing for a number of years and relates to the payment of car allowances for three District Officers in Fire Prevention in Dublin Fire Brigade who use their private cars on official business. An Agreement was entered into between the Council and Third Officers and the District Officers seek to have the terms of this Agreement extended to them. Management have refused to extend the Agreement on a number of grounds.
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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th May, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st August 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim includes the retention of existing car allowance, the payment of road tax and insurance premiums when they fall due and servicing of the vehicle. This will bring the District Officers in line with the Agreement reached between Third Officers and Dublin Fire Brigade in July 2011.
2. The contracts of the Third Officers and District Officers are almost identical, both use their private cars under 'blue lights' and are on the Garda PULSE listing system for such. As the Agreement is 'ring fenced' there is no potential for any knock-on claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are approximately 400 staff in receipt of car allowance, thus the potential for knock-on claims, if this claim were to be conceded, is a real concern for Management.
2. The Agreement of July 2011 was only possible from a Revenue and Council perspective because the Third Officers involved use their cars for emergencies while 'on-call'. The District Officers are not required to operate an emergency on-call system as their calls are prearranged and they therefore cannot avail of this Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court by the Union on behalf of three District Officers in the Fire Prevention Unit of Dublin Fire Brigade concerns the application of an Agreement completed in July 2011 for Third Officers concerning the use of private cars in the discharge of their duties. The Agreement was concluded in respect of Third Officers as they are required to use their own private vehicles when on-call to attend emergency incidents. Management disputed the claim on the basis that the District Officers were not required to be on-call to attend emergencies and the bulk of their work is by preordained arrangement.
The Union sought the application of the July 2011 Agreement on the basis that the same criteria and circumstances apply to the District Officers as apply to the Third Officers, both categories’ private vehicles are fitted with blue lights and sirens in accordance with the statutory provisions as set down in S.I. No. 340 of 2006 and S.I. 342 of 2006 and are listed in the Gárda PULSE system. The Union stated that District Officers are required to attend unforeseen situations.
The Court notes that on 2ndFebruary 2010 the three District Officers were included under the statutory provisions cited above as officers“required to attend emergencies. In such circumstances, the Court recommends in favour of the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd October, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.