LCR22614

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

LGMA

- AND -

1800 RETAINED FIRE FIGHTERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Driver Mechanic Role

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 11 November 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 June 2022.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The role of Driver Mechanic is essential to the ongoing function of the Retained Fire Service

2. Management’s proposal to extinguish the position is ill conceived and poorly thought out and is a direct breach of existing agreements in place

3. Any proposals should be addressed by the parties through agreed procedures

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. Management believes the specialist role of Driver Mechanic is obsolete

2. The conversion of the Driver Mechanic role to that of Sub Officer will support the delivery of services

3. The Company have put forward proposals to address SIPTU’s concerns and believe it is a fair and reasonable approach

RECOMMENDATION:

This referral arises from LCR 21969 issued in April 2019 which was a recommendation of the Court relating to the role of Driver Mechanic in the retained fire services. The Court recommended that the parties engage with a view to concluding an agreement within a six-month period on the future of the Driver Mechanic role. The Court also recommended that the parties engage to agree on the filling of some vacancies on an ‘acting’ basis, pending the conclusion of those substantive talks.

Agreement was reached on the filling of vacancies through ‘acting’ roles on an interim basis. Despite protracted engagement over a three-year period, at local level and with the assistance of the WRC, no agreement was reached on the substantive issue. Management say they have continued to fill posts on an acting basis in good faith but submit that they can do so no longer.

Management is clear that its intention is to eliminate the grade of Driver Mechanic.It says that the specialist role of Driver Mechanic has changed significantly and is now obsolete. Subsuming the core duties of the role into the sub-officer role, which are both remunerated at the same level, will support the retained fire service in the delivery of services.

While SIPTU maintains that the proposal to eliminate the Driver Mechanic role is ill conceived, it acknowledged to the Court that the core issue in dispute is the impact that eliminating the role will have on career progression. In its view Management’s proposal will extinguish 200 promotional opportunities for retained fire fighters.

Management categorically refutes that assertion and submits that its proposal, which sets out staffing levels for One and Two Pump stations, will not change the number of promotional posts. It is satisfied that the proposal addresses concerns about the retention of promotional opportunities and provides a mechanism to address supernumerary posts. Under the proposal all existing driver mechanics will convert to sub-station officers. Where an existing driver mechanic role exceeds proposed staffing levels, the post will be treated as supernumerary until a vacancy arises. A vacancy will not be filled until the staffing level at sub officer level is reached and thereafter normal recruitment will apply.

The Court has carefully considered the oral and written submissions made by the parties.

The core issue in dispute is the impact that eliminating the Driver Mechanic role will have on career progression opportunities for retained fire fighters.

The parties fundamentally disagree over the number of sub-officer posts proposed under management’s proposal. In the Court’s view, this disagreement has been exacerbated by the lack of clarity between the parties at the hearing regarding the current number of Driver Mechanic roles operating in One Pump and Two Pump stations. The disagreement is further compounded by a lack of clarity on the current level of supernumerary roles across the service. SIPTU acknowledges that there is an excess of agreed numbers of Driver Mechanic roles in certain stations, which is a legacy issue.

The Court is conscious that three years have passed since the Court recommended in LCR 21969 that the parties engage with a view to concluding an agreement on this matter within a six-month period. Management have continued to fill posts on an acting basis during this time. Although the implications of the ‘Matzak’ judgement by the EU Court of Justice was raised as an issue in the original submission to the Court, management indicate that while it is still relevant, the Driver Mechanic issue requires to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

SIPTU submitted to the Court that as the Fire Service National Oversight and Implementation Group (FSNOIG) is currently examining recruitment and retention issues in the Retained Fire Service, current agreements should be maintained, pending the outcome of a Departmental review. Both parties confirmed that a review of the Driver Mechanic role is not encompassed by that process and the Court can see no merit in delaying engagement on the Driver Mechanic role pending the outcome of that process.

The Court notes that both sides indicated a willingness to engage further on specific matters raised at the hearing regarding the transfer of core duties from the Driver Mechanic to the Sub-officer role.

In all of the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that both parties would benefit from further engagement on management’s proposal, with the assistance of the WRC if necessary, to clarify the position in relation to current roles in the network and so better understand the impact the proposal may have on promotional opportunities. This engagement should be completed within a six- week timeframe from the date of this Recommendation.

Should the parties fail to reach agreement at the end of that process any matters outstanding between the parties should be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary.