FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRAY TOWN COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Terms for Workers affected by Bray/Shanganagh PPP sewerage project.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Bray-Shanganagh Main Drainage Scheme is a joint Public Private Partnership (PPP) project involving both the D�n Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (DLR) and Wicklow County Council. Bray Town Council has operated the pumping station on behalf of Wicklow County Council and the dispute involves the hand-over agreement regarding the private contractors for two Union members who are directly affected and which was to address their compensation claim for their cooperation.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. At that Conference, the following proposal emerged from the Industrial Relations Officer which both parties undertook to recommend to their principals.
- "Having regard to the unique circumstances of the matter as outlined to me, and the joint nature of the project with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, and not to be a precedent in relation to any other matter or project involving Wicklow County Council, I propose that Bray Town Council applies the same terms, where applicable, as have been agreed with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council".
As agreement could not therefore be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd November, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th January, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was always understood by the Unions and their members that the same terms that were applied to the hand-over to PPP by the DLR would also apply to the two Workers at the centre of this dispute. As a result of this understanding the Workers have assisted and facilitated the Contractor in relation to site visits and hand-over arrangements.
2. It is simply not acceptable that the two members should now be required to accept lesser terms than their counterparts involved in the same project but who are employed by DLR Council.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a cost-increasing claim and is clearly in breach of Section 27.7 of 'Towards 2016'. As there is no additional work required from the two Claimants neither can the claim be justified.
2. One of the Claimants is to avail of an early retirement package and the other will be redeployed to Wicklow County Council and based in Bray. Therefore the Bray Town Council has dealt with both Claimants in a fair and reasonable manner.
3. Concession of this claim could have serious repercussions and knock-on claims from other Employees involved in similar projects such as the upgrading work in the South Leinster Bundle.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court endorses both the sentiments and content expressed in the proposal made by the Industrial Relations Officer on 24th September, 2008 and recommends that it be accepted by both sides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th Febuary, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.