FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Cut in core pay / allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the removal of allowances. 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 2nd July, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th February, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers have carried out this work for long periods of time up to 30 years.
2 The money paid for this work is part of the Workers' core pay.
3 The Workers should retain this money on a personal-to-holder basis.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Council decided to restructure the delivery of water services.
2 The Workers are now no longer required to undertake these extra duties.
3. The Council cannot continue to pay an allowance for work which is no longer carried out.
RECOMMENDATION:
The allowance in issue in this case is clearly in respect of duties that are no longer being performed by those in receipt of the allowance.
In these circumstances and in line with previous recommendations, the Court believes that it is appropriate to discontinue the allowance and that compensation be paid at 1.5 times the annual loss.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th February, 2014______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.