FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Non-Attendance at (i) Positive Pressure Ventilation (PPV)/Ladder Training and (ii) Jack Lynch Tunnel (JLT) Training.
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, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 January 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The expected attendance at Positive Pressure Ventilation (PPV)/Ladder Training was unnecessary and was in fact an oppressive use of the training regime.
2. The dispensation of time-off-in-lieu alone is neither adequate nor appropriate for attendance at training courses on rostered days off.
3. The Union contends that an agreement was reached with management in February 2012 that the minimum notice to be advised to affected SIPTU fire-fighters for attendance at training courses was four weeks. Management have now resiled from this.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Cork City Council organised ten training courses since October 2016 none of which have fire personnel attended.
2. There is a long established practice whereby staff undertaking training off-shift are granted time-off-in-lieu at an alternative date. This is provided for in detail in the Fire Brigade Book of Agreements of 1987. A claim for financial payment is a cost-increasing measure and is in breach of the Public Service Agreement.
3.The claimed 2012 agreement has not been produced by the Union.The Council whenever possible will give four weeks' notice of training to participants in relation to scheduled training courses. However, in instances where the aforementioned notice is not possible staff members must nevertheless attend the scheduled training.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends as follows:
1. Honouring agreements is central to good practice in industrial relations and accordingly both the Council and Union should comply with terms of the 1987 Agreement.2. In compliance with the terms of that Agreement the Union should undertake the disputed training outlined to the Court.
3. The Court notes the Council’s commitment to provide staff with one month’s notice of training where possible. The Court therefore recommends that the Council confirm to the Union its commitment to provide such notice where possible. Where it is not possible to so do, which should be the exception rather than the rule, the Council should, when publishing the notice, provide clear and substantive reasons for the short notice of training.
4. The Court understands that some members of staff may, for myriad reasons, have genuine difficulties attending properly notified training. Such individuals should, in such circumstances, apply to management for an exemption from the scheduled training. Such an exemption should not, in bona fide cases, be unreasonably withheld.
5. The Council and the Union should immediately commence discussions on the Union’s outstanding claims as outlined to the Court in the course of the hearing. In addition the parties should engage with a view to both updating the 1987 Agreement and agreeing a protocol on the administration of the updated Agreement in the Cork Fire Brigade.
6. Those talks should be processed through the agreed industrial relations procedures within four months of the date of this Recommendation. Any matters outstanding at the end of that process should be referred back to the Labour Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
1 February 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.