This article is from page 8 of the 2006-08-01 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 8 JPG
THE LABOUR Court has ruled against a claim by Clare’s firefighters to secure retrospective benchmarking payments from Clare County Council.
The council approved only 60 per cent of the retrospective benchmarking payments in accordance with a recommendation of the Secretary General of the Department of Environment. However, the firefighters’ union, SIPTU, claimed that the Secretary General “erred significantly” as there was no reference to Department powers in this regard.
The union maintained that the Secretary General did not take due cognisance of the fact that the majority of council’s new work practices for firefighters was not alone agreed but largely implemented in early 2004. SIPTU said it wanted to build on and nurture the positive and harmonious industrial relations atmosphere that currently exists between management and employees.
However, the council contended that if the procedures provided for under Sustaining Progress were to be upheld, it would not be appropriate for full retrospection to be paid.
The council said it had been seeking to reach agreement in relation to its modernisation change agenda from May 2004 but no agreement was reached until October, 2005.
In its submission, the council claimed that under the terms of Sustaining Programme, payment could only be made on the basis of verifiable co-operation with flexibility and ongoing change but this did not take place until October, 2005 — 15 months after the main body of employees in the Council signed up to their own modernisation change agenda and 20 months after agreement had been reached at national level.
According to the council, the payment of full retrospection would undermine the position of all other public sector employees who accepted local modernisation changes without any delay.
The Labour Court said the issue arose when the Government Performance Verification Group approved only 60 per cent of the retrospection to the Clare firefighters on foot of a recommendation by the Secretary General of the Department of Environment. The reason given for the reduction to 60 per cent was due to the failure of the firefighters to engage in meaningful discussions on the change and modernisation programmes until February 2005, with no final agreement until October 2005. Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the court ruled in favour of the council and rejected the firefighters’ claim.