FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Loss of earnings claim for staff in acting-up positions which ceased.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 24 April 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 March 2016 and a Labour Court Recommendation,No. LCR21196issued to the parties on 8 April 2016. Arising from that Recommendation the case was subsequently referred back to the WRC and resubmitted to the Labour Court on 21 June 2016. A subsequent Labour Court hearing took place on 30 August 2016 and the arguments put forward by the parties at that hearing remained substantively the same as those stated at the Labour Court hearing of 9 March 2016. 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 following the merger of Waterford City Council and Waterford County Council in June 2014.Thefollowing is the Court's Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive submission of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the number of acting positions in Waterford City and Waterford County Council were roughly halved as a consequence of their merger into the unified Waterford Council. The staff adversely affected by this restructuring were redeployed to other positions at their substantive grade within the Council. Some of those members of staff had been in acting positions for up to eleven years when their acting positions were abolished.
As the decision to abolish those posts in Waterford was taken outside of the Workforce Planning Framework set out by the LGMA in its Circular Letter of 13 November 2013 the staff adversely affected by it are not comparable to other long term actors who were unsuccessful in related competitions that arose out of that process elsewhere.
The Court finds therefore that in the unique circumstances of this case the long term actors that were adversely affected by that decision are accordingly sui generis and should be dealt with under the provisions of the Haddington Road Restructuring Agreement.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the affected staff, which numbers between 20 – 24 in total, are entitled to compensation in the sum of 1.5 times the annual value of the acting allowance applicable to them at the time they reverted to their substantive posts.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
7 September 2016______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.