FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Non-application of rent allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the non-application of rent allowance for three full-time firefighters. 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 26th 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 Rent allowance is a fundamental part of a firefighter's pay.
2 The three firefighters were clearly informed prior to accepting the job offer that rent allowance would be paid.
3 These three firefighters were appointed in advance of the notification of the withdrawal of the rent allowance.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Council has fully complied with the relevant departmental circulars on this matter.
2 By the time these three firefighters took up employment with the Council the payment of rent allowance had been barred by the Department.
3. The Council has no discretion to pay the rent allowance to these three firefighters.
RECOMMENDATION:
The question of whether allowances should be retained, changed or eliminated was addressed by the Court in Recommendation LCR20448. While that Recommendation was issued in a dispute involving SIPTU and the Department of Education, the Court understands that the principles set out in that Recommendation have been given broad application within public service employments. The allowance at issue in this case appears to come within the category of allowances referred to in LCR20448.
However, the question of how this allowance should be treated has broad national implications. Consequently that question should be discussed by the appropriate parties at national level with a view to reaching agreement.
Pending the finalisation of that process the claim currently before the Court should not be progressed further at this time.
The Court is prepared to review this claim after a period of six months from the date of this recommendation in light of the progress of the national discussions referred to above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th February, 2014______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.