FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : CARLOW COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IMPACT) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Failure to honour contractual arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant has been employed by Carlow County Council since 2004 as a Substitute Revenue Collector to cover annual and sick leave of Revenue Collectors in Carlow County Council. Early in 2011 the Claimant raised an issue with the Council regarding the allocation of hours as she had become aware that another Substitute Revenue Collector was now doing her work. A number of local meeting were held but no agreement could be reached
On the 23rd January 2012 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th September, 2012.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was not given work that should have been allocated to her as per her contractual arrangements and she has suffered a significant loss of earnings as a result.
2. The Council should assign the Claimant other appropriate duties or failing this offer her voluntary redundancy as provided for in the Public Service Agreement.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant as a casual employee can only receive work as and when it is available. Such is the contractual arrangement that the Council is not bound to offer her work nor is she bound to be available for work. The Council will offer her work if and when there is a requirement.
2. It is the case that the need for substitute cover has significantly reduced over recent years due to a number of factors but mainly due to the increase in use in office based collection and electronic fund transfers.
RECOMMENDATION:
It seems to the Court that the reality of the Claimant's position with the Council is that she would be offered work if and when she is required and that she does not have a contractual entitlement to any particular volume of work.
Nevertheless, the Claimant has a legitimate expectation that she will be offered a fair allocation of such work as is available commensurate with her position on the panel. In the Court's view the Council should put a transparent system in place so as to ensure that available work is assigned on that basis.
The Court recommends that the Council and the Unions should have discussions on the development of such a system.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th October, 2012______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.