FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Revised promotions system in Cork City Fire Service.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Employer's proposal to introduce a competitive promotion system in the Cork City Fire Service. 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 21st December, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th February, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 There is a long-standing agreement that a minimum of ten years' reckonable service is required before applying for promotion.
2 The introduction of the Council's proposals would be unfair and unpalatable to the Workers.
3 A minimum service requirement for promotional purposes is the norm elsewhere in the fire service.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The existing promotion process is out-dated and unsuitable.
2 The Council has failed to reach agreement with the Union on a more suitable promotion system.
3. The Council is convinced that its proposals will deliver a best practice promotion system.
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter came before the Court by way of a referral from the Labour Relations Commission under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The subject matter of the dispute as referred by the Commission was: -
“Revised promotion system Cork City Fire Service”
At the commencement of the hearing it became clear that the Union was asking the Court to deal with one specific issue, namely, how the selection board for promotions should be constructed. It became equally clear that the City Council was asking the Court to deal with two further items, namely, the length of qualifying service for promotion and the introduction of a written examination as part of the promotion competition. The Union told the Court that it was not consenting to an investigation of the other two matters referred to by the City Council.
Having considered its position the City Council representative told the Court that it would proceed with an investigation on the single issue to which the Union was prepared to consent. It further indicated that it would deal with the other issues locally and in conciliation if necessary.
It is clear to the Court that there are three components to the dispute which the Court has been asked to investigate. Until a common position is reached between the parties on all three issues an agreement cannot be concluded and the dispute cannot be finally resolved. It would be futile at this juncture for the Court to issues a definitive recommendation on a single aspect of this dispute in circumstances where a final agreement cannot be reached until all matters in contention are resolved.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the parties return to conciliation with a view to reaching agreement on the totality of the dispute. If agreement is not reached all outstanding issues should be jointly referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th February, 2013______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.