LCR22660

PARTIES:

1.Non payment of additional nights payment for Firefighters because of Covid 19 Emergency Roster.

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 19th August 2022 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th October 2022.


UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union says that the negotiations in 2020 between it and the Employer included all firefighters and not just 'rotator' staff who rotate on a 50/50 basis between the police and fire departments.

2. The Union argues that it would be unfair and unreasonable for the DAA to compensate only eleven firefighters and not all firefighters who worked additional nights over their contracted 60 nights.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The employer contends that only the 'rotators', of whom there were 16 at the time of the agreement, were to be part of the agreement reached between it and SIPTU in 2020.

2. The employer says that it was unaware that the Union side had even contemplated that all firefighters were to be included.




RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parries.

It is clear that an agreement was reached in April 2020 as regards ‘rotator’ staff in the context of the employer’s response to the global health pandemic. That agreement recognised that such staff would move from 8 hour to 12-hour shifts, would be assigned to the fire service only and could exceed their contracted total of 60 nights per annum. In return for the commitment to co-operate with the employer’s response to the pandemic and with the effects of that response on ‘rotator’ staff, it was agreed at that time that a compensation arrangement would be agreed subsequently. In the event the employer has tabled a proposal to pay rotator staff affected by all three criteria a sum of €1,000 each in respect of 2020 and a further €1,000 each in respect of 2021.

The Trade Union contends that engagements between the full-time trade union official and senior HR personnel in April 2020 included reference to staff other than rotators and that further engagements in September 2020 made similar reference to such other fire staff. These assertions by the Trade Union are rejected by the employer.

In addition, the Trade Union submitted e-mail correspondence to the Court between a shop steward and the Chief Fire Officer dating from 4^thApril 2020 in support of the contention that an understanding was in being in April 2020 that the Trade Union would be seeking that whatever compensation which might be paid to ‘rotator’ staff would be paid to fire officers other than ‘rotator’ staff also.

The Trade Union has not submitted that an agreement was ever reached between the parties that compensation should be paid to staff other than ‘rotator’ staff. It is common case that all staff were paid for every hour they worked throughout the period.

It is clear to the Court that the agreement with the employer on behalf of ‘rotator’ staff in response to the COVID 19 pandemic would cause ‘rotator’ staff to move from 8 hour to 12-hour shifts, be assigned to the fire service only and to potentially exceed their contracted total of 60 nights per annum.

It is also clear that staff other than ‘rotator’ staff were not at any time required to change from their existing pattern of 12-hour shifts or to change their work arrangements in the manner of ‘rotator’ staff who would not rotate between fire and police services during the period of the operation of arrangements in response to the pandemic.

It is contended by the employer that fire officers regularly worked more than 60 nights per annum. The Trade Union disputed this assertion. The Court was provided with no understanding as regards the normal frequency of working beyond 60 nights of fire officers other than ‘rotator’ staff before 2020 and was provided with no understanding of the frequency of working beyond 60 nights during the response to the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021.

The Court believes that a pragmatic approach to the circumstances underpinning the within dispute is required. The staff involved, in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic, did not, unlike practically all of the other staff of the employer, suffer a reduction in their working hours or pay during the response to that emergency. In addition, the staff involved in the claim received a voucher from the employer, in common with other staff, to acknowledge their co-operation with the arrangements put in place to keep staff as safe as possible and to maintain the operation of the employer notwithstanding the drastic fall off in flying for large periods.

Having regard to the background circumstances and the fact that the staff involved in this claim were not affected similarly to the ‘rotator’ staff, and taking account of the fact that the Court has not been provided with data or records to demonstrate whether the such staff worked nights beyond 60 to any substantial degree beyond normal, the Court does not recommend concession of the within claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
26th October 2022	Chairman