Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87122 Case Number: LCR11529 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: THOMOND COLLEGE - and - TUI |
(a) Refusal of the College authorities to release information to the Union concerning details of a pension scheme. (b) Claim for deduction at source facilities for two employees.
Recommendation:
9. The Court considers that it is not unreasonable for the
claimants to request information as to how their pension
entitlement would be affected by their transferring to the new
scheme. The Court accordingly recommends that the College should
furnish them with all relevant information concerning their
personal positions. The Court also recommends that the College
should provide the Union with copies of its correspondence with
the claimants on their taking up employment with the College where
the claimants authorise its release.
In the absence of any evidence of an objection by the majority
union in the College to the deduction of union dues at source in
respect of the two claimants, the Court recommends that the
College concede this claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87122 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11529
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11529
PARTIES: THOMOND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TCE)
and
TEACHERS' UNION OF IRELAND (TUI)
Subject:
1. (a) Refusal of the College authorities to release
information to the Union concerning details of a pension
scheme.
(b) Claim for deduction at source facilities for two
employees.
Background:
2. Thomond College was established as a statutory body by the
Minister for Education under the Thomond College of Education,
Limerick, Act, 1980. This Act provided for the introduction of a
pension scheme for College staff, with the approval of the
Ministers for Education and Finance. Prior to this the College
was not legally in a position to offer a statutory pension scheme
to its' staff. A statutory pension scheme did, however, come into
operation with effect from January, 1984, with the approval of the
Ministers for Education and the Public Service of the scheme in
July, 1985.
3. The College had commenced operating on an hoc basis in
January, 1973, as the National College for Physical Education. In
order to recruit staff, applicants were invited by way of public
advertisement to participate in open competitions for posts.
Approximately one-third of the academic staff offered posts by the
College were already members of a statutory pension scheme as
employees of local authorities, i.e. Vocational Education
Committees (VEC's) and in order to protect these pensions, a
secondment arrangement was entered into on an individual basis
between the College and the various VEC's.
4. On the 2nd October, 1986, the College's Registrar wrote to
those who had secondment arrangements informing them that the TCE
statutory pension scheme had been approved and that arrangements
were being made to bring their secondment to an end and to
transfer their pensionable service to the College (this had been
conveyed to the Union in a letter dated 24th September). The
Union, on behalf of some of its members, sought a meeting with the
College authorities to discuss this issue. A meeting was held on
the 21st October, at which the Union sought information in regard
to the differences between the two sets of pension arrangements
and a sample of the exchange of letters between the College and
the members involved on the occasion of their taking up employment
in the College. This request was turned down by the College.
5. The Union also requested that deduction at source (DAS)
facilities be afforded to staff who are in membership of the Union
and who request in writing the extension of this facility to them.
This too was refused in respect of two workers, on the grounds
that the College did not recognise the Union's right to negotiate
on behalf of the workers concerned. In support of its position
the College contended that in February, 1982,a ruling was made by
the Disputes Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that
the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs
(ASTMS) has the sole negotiating rights in the College on behalf
of the College staff and, as the two workers concerned are not
seconded officers, they are members of the staff of the College.
6. Local level discussions failed to resolve the dispute and on
the 7th January, 1987, the Union referred the matter to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. The College declined to
attend a conciliation conference and, on the 12th February, 1987,
the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, agreeing beforehand
to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing into
the dispute was scheduled for the 18th March, 1987, but the
College declined to attend on the grounds that it considered the
claimants to be officers of VEC's and that under Section 4 of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1946, as amended by Section 2 of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1976, officers of VECs are excluded from
the definition of a "worker" as laid down in the 1946 Act. It
also declined to attend to discuss the issue of DAS facilities
on the grounds that the ASTMS had the sole negotiating rights on
behalf of College staff. Following further correspondence and
submissions from both parties on the question of the workers'
access to the Labour Court, the Court decided that the case came
within its jurisdiction and a hearing was held in Limerick on the
14th October, 1987. The College again declined to attend this
hearing.
Claim (a) - refusal of the College authorities to release to the
Union information concerning details of its pension
scheme.
Union's arguments:
7. (a) The Thomond College authorities have consistently
refused to provide information sought by the Union in
respect of the appointment of Union members to the
College. Specifically the Union sought on behalf of
its members information in regard to the differences
between the two sets of pension arrangements and a
sample of the exchange of letters between the College
and the members involved on the occasion of their
taking up employment in the College.
(b) The Union believes that it is entitled to receive the
information it sought on behalf of the claimants and
that the College was not entitled to refuse it. Good
industrial relations practice would support this view.
(c) In the context of the College's delay of more than a
decade in bringing forward its pension scheme, the
request for information was a reasonable request, put
reasonably by the Union. The refusal of the College
to release the information caused a great deal of
anger and apprehension amongst the members. The
subsequent action of the College in seeking to prevent
the Court from investigating the matter by alleging
that the members involved were VEC officers has served
only to exacerbate those feelings.
Claim (b) - deduction at source facilities for two employees
Union's arguments:
8. (a) Management, in a letter to the Court, has stated that
the Union was only recognised by the College on the
basis that the Union's members were VEC officers.
This is both false and foolish. The entire question
of the TUI's members being VEC officers only arose
when the College sought to make this argument in order
to prevent the Court investigating the issues referred
to it by the Union. The Union has not held
recognition in the College only on the basis of its
members being VEC officers and the Union is perfectly
entitled to seek DAS facilities for those of its
members who request same.
(b) The two members of the Union who joined Thomond
College in September, 1986, paid their Union
subscription to the Teachers' Union of Ireland by
means of DAS in their former employment. The matter
of DAS arose when they noted that their colleagues in
Thomond College paid their Union subscription by DAS
and they sought only to have the same facility.
(c) The College claim that the granting of DAS to the two
Union members who have requested same would be
tantamount to recognition of the TUI is patently
ludicrous since the TUI at local and national level
has repeatedly represented its members in Thomond
College.
(d) The Court will be aware that there are procedures
within the ICTU for the resolution of difficulties
which arise between affiliated Unions. There is no
such difficulty between the ICTU affiliated unions in
this case and it is mischievous of Thomond College to
seek to introduce such a difficulty. Since Thomond
College has introduced the matter without support
documentation of any kind (such as the ICTU ruling and
the procedural agreement with ASTMS the Union feels
obliged to deal with the matter raised.
(e) In this regard, and while not wishing to involve the
Court in ICTU procedures in any way whatsoever, the
Union would wish the Court to know -
- the Union has received no communication whatsoever
from the ICTU in respect of this matter which was
first raised with Thomond College twelve months ago
in October, 1986;
- the Union is not aware of there being any
difficulty with its fellow ICTU affiliate in
respect of this matter and certainly does not
accept an employer's view that a fellow ICTU
affiliate would object to the subscriptions of the
Union's members being paid on DAS;
- the two members of the Union who wish to have the
DAS facility have not previously been involved with
any other union;
- the two members have not been approached to join
any other union and in any event would have no wish
to do so;
- the two members believe themselves to be
discriminated against in that a facility which is
available to their colleagues is being denied to
them.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court considers that it is not unreasonable for the
claimants to request information as to how their pension
entitlement would be affected by their transferring to the new
scheme. The Court accordingly recommends that the College should
furnish them with all relevant information concerning their
personal positions. The Court also recommends that the College
should provide the Union with copies of its correspondence with
the claimants on their taking up employment with the College where
the claimants authorise its release.
In the absence of any evidence of an objection by the majority
union in the College to the deduction of union dues at source in
respect of the two claimants, the Court recommends that the
College concede this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th November, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman