IMPACT secured a significant win at the Labour Court in August, in a case involving a senior assistant chief fire officer whose roster allowance was withheld during the course of two pregnancies in 2010 and 2012.

The case was brought to the Court when the employer, Wicklow County Council, appealed an earlier decision by the Rights Commissioner.  In February 2013, the Rights Commisioner had recommended that the employee, Sinead  Sweeney, should receive payment in respect of the withheld allowance for the duration of her maternity leave in 2012. However, the recommendation did not include the allowance withheld during Sinead’s pregnancy while she was still at work, nor in respect of her pregnancy and maternity leave in 2010.

IMPACT official Stella Griffin, who represented Sinead, explained, “Part of Sinead’s duties in her role is participation in the senior fire officer roster*. When Sinead became pregnant in 2010 she was removed from the roster following a risk assessment. For her subsequent pregnancy in 2012 she was again removed from the roster. On both occasions the allowance for the roster was removed from her pay.”

Stella’s research for the case identified a number of instances in other local authorities where the allowance was paid to female SFOs during their pregnancies and subsequent maternity leave. “I checked to see if the payment of this allowance had been removed from any employees due to absences from work for other reasons, such as sick leave, and they had not been removed. I presented this as part of the IMPACT argument to both the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court, supplementing our position that Sinead should not be disenfranchised in terms of her pay as a result of pregnancy” she said.

The Labour Court issued its decision on 27^th August 2013 which stated “the Court finds that standard practice in the Sector supports the Union’s claim for payment of the allowance in respect of both of claimant’s period of pregnancy during which she was stood down from the relevant roster”.

Published error

When Stella received notice of the appeal decision, she discovered an error under the heading Union’s Arguments 3.1. The error remains in the version of the recommendation published on the Labour Court’s website. The court has issued an amendment to IMPACT by email which states “This should have read, under point. 3.1 (Union's Arguments) that 'This allowance is paid during sick pay.'”

You can read the full recommendation HERE.

*Agreed between IMPACT and Local Government Staff Negotiations Board 1996