FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay parity with An Garda Siochana.
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 26 October 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 December 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no disputing the clear pay relationship that currently exists between Dublin Fire Brigade and the Gardai.
2. On several occasions over the years, additional allowances in the nature of pay, such as Rent Allowance have been afforded to Fire-fighters as a result of pay parity.
3. Certain allowances afforded to Gardai in 2016 are in respect of duties of a similar nature to those performed by members of Dublin Fire Brigade, and these allowances should be afforded to Fire-fighters.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no basis for the claim as there has never been any relativity between the Fire Service and An Garda Siochana as it relates to allowances other than Rent Allowance.
2. The Local Authority Sector is of the opinion that unconditional relativity with any group whether external or internal, in this case Gardai, is untenable.
3. This is a cost increasing claim,it is precluded by the Public Service Stability Agreement and cannot be conceded during the currency of the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was clarified at the hearing as relating solely to claims by the Trade Union for
(a) Application to members of Dublin Fire Brigade of a Parade Allowance enjoyed by An Garda Siochana.And
(b) Application to members of Dublin Fire Brigade of an annual leave payment enjoyed by An Garda Siochana.
Both parties confirmed to the Court at the hearing that these were the matters upon which they were agreed a recommendation was sought.
The Court notes that the Trade Union related its claim in both instances to what it claims is a pay parity relationship with An Garda Siochana. The Trade Union accepted that not all allowances payable to members of An Garda Siochana are payable to members of Dublin Fire Brigade. The Trade Union however contended that members of Dublin Fire Brigade carried out the relevant tasks or carried a liability in the same or ‘like’ manner as members of An Garda Siochana and as such should receive the two allowances claimed.
Management set out to the Court a view that a relationship of pay parity no longer existed as between members of An Garda Siochana and members of Dublin Fire Brigade. Management contended that the Fire Brigade did not carry out the relevant tasks or carry the relevant liability in the same or ‘like’ manner as members of An Garda Siochana. In addition management submitted that the within claims were cost increasing claims in contravention of the parties’ ‘Lansdowne Road Agreement’ and extension thereof at clause 4.2.1 which prohibits cost increasing claims during the lifetime of the agreement.
The Court notes that no undisputed detail is before the Court as regards the comparative arrangements of members of Dublin Fire Brigade and An Garda Siochana as regards shift handover / Parade Time and the comparative incidence in practice as regards Court attendance. The Court, on the basis of the submissions before it, is unable to conclude that members of An Garda Siochana and the Dublin Fire Brigade are in a same or ‘like’ situation in either of these two areas and for that reason cannot find in favour of the claims before it.
The Court must also address the contention before it that the claims before it are cost increasing and thus prohibited by the parties’ collective agreement – The Lansdowne Road Agreement. The Court notes that the claims before the Court, were they to be conceded, would carry an increased cost to the employer. By definition therefore the claims are cost increasing. The Court notes that the Trade Union has asserted that the Lansdowne Road Agreement and extension allow a facility for ‘minor claims’ and that the Court should view the within claims as ‘minor claims’. The Court notes that the Council disputes this assertion. The Court has no detail before it of the parties’ agreement on the processing of ‘minor claims’ during the lifetime of their national agreement and is unclear as to whether claims which would affect all members of a particular category and with potential national application are characterised as being ‘minor claims’ within that framework.
The Court therefore concludes that the within claims are cost increasing and are consequently prohibited by agreement between the parties at clause 4.2.1 of their agreement. The Court also makes clear that it has no basis before it to accept that the parties’ nationally agreed ‘minor claims’ provision has application to the within matters.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
19 December 2017______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.