FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Loss of earnings claim.
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 October 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6 March 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Public Service Agreement allows for compensation in cases where a loss of earnings occurs.
2. The loss in this case is as result of fire ground area which cannot be recovered. This loss is permanent and the resulting loss of earnings for the calls in this area needs to be taken into account for the real loss to be calculated.
3. The method of calculation should take into account the loss of the calls in the lost fire ground.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer confirmed that it would consider payment for loss of earnings.
2 The employer believes that it cannot compensate other than within the provisions of what has been accepted by the parties to the Public Service Agreement and has been confirmed in numerous Labour Court recommendations.
3. The employer believes that it has acted in good faith at all times and confirmed its willingness to compensate for loss of earnings in accordance with the Public Service Agreement where such is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues in dispute between the parties concern the calculation of loss of earnings for retained firefighters following the opening of the Carraroe fire station in February 2016.
Prior to February 2016, Galway City and Clifden retained fire fighters attended call-out incidences in the Carraroe area of West Galway. Once the new fire station opened they were no longer required to attend call-out in that area.
It is not disputed that a loss of earnings arose for the retained firefighters covered by this claim. The Council confirmed that they would consider payment for loss of earnings in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Agreements. The issue in dispute between the parties is the methodology of calculating the loss.
It is the Union’s position that the issue of calculating loss of earnings in the Galway County Council retained fire service was agreed between the parties following on from Labour Court recommendation LCR 20683. In support of this they drew the Court’s attention to letters sated 27thOctober 2017 from the Chief Fire Officer setting out the calculation of their loss of earnings using the agreed formula. A further email confirming this was received on 13thNovember 2017. Later on that same day they were notified that human Resources had raised issues with the method of calculation.
The methodology being proposed by Human Resources resulted in smaller payments for the majority of the union members and a saving for the Council. It is the Union’s position that management are seeking to breach the agreement they have in place in relation to the calculation of loss.
The Management do not dispute that following LCR 20683 agreement was reached at local level in relation to the calculation of loss arising from that particular set of circumstances. They accept that initially that formula was used to calculate the losses arising in this instance. However, when the calculations were submitted to Human Resources they advised that the formula used was not in accordance with the Public Service Agreement. It is the Employer’s position that the Human Resources department were not aware of the previous agreement.
The Court having carefully consideration both parties’ submissions and the oral submissions made on the day recommends that the 2014 formula be applied to these losses. The Court makes this recommendation on the basis that it was not made sufficiently clear to the parties in advance of the calculation of the losses that the process that was used in 2014 would not apply going forward. This resulted in an expectation in terms of losses which was reinforced by the letter of October 2017. The Court recommends that in relation to this specific issue the 2014 formula can be used but going forward the standard Public Service Agreement approach should be adopted.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
2 April 2019______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.