FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD CITY & COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Long term acting.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of approximately twenty employees in relation to the cessation of long term acting-up arrangements. The dispute relates to the Union's claim for the regularisation of long term actors given how long the acting-up arrangements were in place, the continuation of the payment of an acting-up allowance for a period of time after the cessation of the acting-up arrangements previously applicable to the Claimants prior to the merger of Waterford City Council and Waterford County Council in June 2014, or compensation for the loss of acting-up allowances. The Employer rejects the Union's claim and agreement could not be reached. 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 24th April, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th March, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that at the time of the merger the acting-up posts had been held for periods of time ranging between two and eleven years and should have been regularised at that time.
2. The Union is seeking compensation arising from the loss of earnings as a result of the cessation of the acting-up arrangements.
3. The Union maintains that its claim for loss of earnings is encompassed in the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that the payment of compensation is unwarranted in this case and accordingly rejects the Union's claim for same.
2. The Employer is of the view that the Union's claim is cost-increasing and is precluded under the terms of the current Public Service Agreement.
3. The Employer asserts that concession of the Union's claim would have significant implications across the Civil and Public Sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the course of the Court’s investigation into this dispute it formed the view that the parties would benefit from further engagement at the WRC. The Court directed the parties to return to the WRC for time bound discussions to clarify and resolve the issues in dispute. Should the parties fail to resolve all issues within eight weeks of the date of this Recommendation they should, with the consent of the WRC, refer any outstanding issues back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
8th April 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.