FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. A hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation no 21393.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute is a referral back to the Court arising from Labour CourtRecommendation No 21393. The Court recommended that:
- “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.”
- Agreement could not be reached in both on-shift and off-shift training and the Draft revised Books of Agreement. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13 September 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
- A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26 September 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The within dispute was the subject of a previous Labour Court Recommendation (LCR21393, dated 1 February 2017) and concerns the arrangements that apply in relation to the participation by Cork Fire Brigade personnel (‘the Workers’) in both on-shift and off-shift training. In LCR21393, the Court recommended, inter alia, that 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.”
The Court notes that the Parties have met on four occasions following the issuing of LCR2139 and that some progress has been made in implementing the Court’s recommendations. Both parties prepared and exchanged draft revised Books of Agreement. The Court notes, in particular, the Union’s stated position that up to 88.75% of Fire Fighter Skills Training could be completed on an on-shift basis thus considerably reducing the overall requirement to schedule mandatory training exercises on an on-shift basis.
However, the Parties have not as yet reached agreement on all elements of the proposed revised Book of Agreements. Notwithstanding this, the Council has scheduled a number of essential training exercises for the period October to December 2017. The Union submits that time spent by its members while engaging in off-shift training is working time within the meaning of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. It also submits that the current arrangement whereby its members receive compensation for attending such training by means of time-off-in-lieu is both insufficient and out of line with the practice in other comparable Fire Services. The Council submits that the Union’s claim for alternative compensation arrangements, if conceded, would be a cost-increasing measure and a breach of the Public Service Agreements.
Recommendation
Both the Council and the Union should continue to comply with the terms of the 1987 Book of Agreements pending the conclusion of negotiations between the Parties to agree a revised Book of Agreements. Therefore, the Workers should continue to undertake the off-shift and other training scheduled for the period 1 October to 15 December in accordance with the currently agreed arrangements that apply to such training.
In the meantime, the Parties should resume intensive discussions – with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission or another mutually acceptable Facilitator – to build on the substantial work that has been done by them to date with a view to finalising a revised Book of Agreements in early course. In anticipation of these discussions, both Parties should apprise themselves fully of the precise arrangements that currently apply in comparable fire services (e.g. Dublin, Limerick and Galway) in relation to similar training exercises.
The Court remains available to assist the Parties to resolve any issues that remain outstanding on the completion of the above process.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
29 September 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.