Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87159 Case Number: AD8734 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SCOIL MHUIRE NA NGAEL/ST.JOS. - and - LGPSU |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW 126/86.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made, the Court does not
consider compensation to be the means whereby the current problem
can be resolved. The Court therefore decides that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87159 THE LABOUR COURT AD34/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 34 OF 1987
Parties: SCOIL MHUIRE NA NGAEL/SAINT JOSEPH'S
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation CW 126/86.
Background:
2. A scheme for the employment of school care-takers in full-time
posts was introduced in 1979. The terms of the scheme were as
follows:
(a) National schools having a staff of 16 or more teachers
were eligible to participate in the scheme,
(b) where two or more schools share the same campus and
their combined staff amount to at least twenty
teachers, an application for the joint employment of a
caretaker would be considered,
(c) the duties of caretakers are determined by the Board of
Management. Conditions of service in relation to hours
of duty, annual leave etc. are those appropriate to
full-time employment.
3. The worker concerned was appointed school care-taker of the
two schools in Autumn, 1982. At that time, the schools, having
less than twenty teachers together and despite being a mile apart,
were approved for a joint appointment. The Union claim that the
worker was given to understand that when both schools developed to
sixteen teachers each, a further caretaker would be employed. At
present one of the schools has 22 teachers and the other has 28.
The Union sought the employment of a second caretaker but as local
level discussions failed to resolve the issue it was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
4. The Rights Commissioner, having investigated the dispute on
the 23rd October, 1986, issued the following recommendation on the
3rd November:
Findings:
"It seems to me that the worker concerned has behaved
with exemplary patience in pursuing his dispute under
due procedure. I note also that local discussions
elicited a sincere sympathetic response. The
undertaking which he was given regarding a second
caretaker has clearly been breached. The workload with
which he is expected to cope is also clearly
excessive. I am concerned that in these circumstances
a situation could arise which could seriously affect
the security of the schools."
Recommendation:
"I recommend that Management take appropriate steps to
ensure the appointment of a second caretaker in the
immediate future".
This recommendation was unacceptable to the Union as it made no
provision for a recognition of the difficulties for the worker
pending the filling of a second post and it appealed the matter to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held in Dundalk on the 1st April,
1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) At the time of his appointment the worker concerned was
given to understand that when both schools developed to
sixteen teachers a further caretaker would be employed.
At present there are fifty teachers in total yet a
second caretaker has not been appointed.
(b) The present position is considered to be unreasonable
in that it places impossible demands on the claimant
and the job at either school cannot be performed to a
level which will allow a reasonable level of job
satisfaction. Attempts at resolving the position at
local level have evoked sympathy, which the Union
accepts is sincere, but nothing more.
(c) The Union had considered directing the worker to
confine himself to one school campus (which would
represent more than a comparable work-load with the
majority of single-handed caretakers) but it decided to
await the outcome of a third party referral.
Management's arguments:
6. Management was represented at the hearing by the local school
manager.
(i) The worker's job is under the Department of Education
and local management is not therefore really a part of
this dispute. It is not against the appointment of a
second caretaker but one cannot be appointed.
(ii) At the time of the worker's appointment there was a
provision for a second caretaker if the schools were
big enough. However, this scheme has now come to an
end.
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions made, the Court does not
consider compensation to be the means whereby the current problem
can be resolved. The Court therefore decides that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
___________________________
Deputy Chairman.
4th May, 1987.
D.H./J.C.