LCR22319

1.Lcr21484 - Occupational Injury Benefit Agreement

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 22 November 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 December 2020.




UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union is claiming that a 1994 Agreement does not distinguish between any duties, in terms of occupational injury cover.

2. The Occupational Injury Scheme is designed to cover members who are injured whilst carrying out their duties at work.

3. The Union contends that the members have no discretion in what duties they carry out and that their working day is scheduled by Management.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer says that the Scheme is specific in its intent and that is to support fire-fighters where absences occur as a result of injury sustained in the "actual discharge of their duties and by some injury attributable solely to the nature of his duty".

2. It is clear from the scheme that what is intended by the scheme is its application in respect of injuries directly sustained in fire-fighting and in addition that the injury could only have arisen solely as a result of the nature of undertaking his/her specific duty as a firefighter.

3.The Employer believes that the scheme and the original purpose of it was to apply where the fire service member was participating in one of the following activities in pursuance of a fire service obligation - (a) activity of a hazardous nature, (b) activity in a hazardous environment; or (c) training to improve or maintain the effectiveness of the fire service.



RECOMMENDATION:

The matter comes before the Court as a trade dispute regarding the coverage of an occupational injury benefit scheme for full time fire fighters. The scheme has been in place by agreement since 1994.

The Trade Union contends that the scheme should apply where the fire fighter is engaged in rostered duties. The employer contends that the scheme should not apply to certain rostered duties.

The Court has examined the documentation supplied by the parties very carefully. The Court notes that a proposal for the resolution of the dispute was made by the employer on 24^thJuly 2019.

The Court recommends that the employer’s proposal should be amended so as to include rostered cooking and cleaning duties within the coverage of the scheme. The amended proposal should be accepted as the resolution of the within trade dispute.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
17 December 2020	Chairman