Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88540 Case Number: LCR12041 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AN FORAS TALUNTAIS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Provision of canteen service.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that the withdrawal of canteen
facilities is covered by the legislative guarantees relating to
the formation of Teagasc. Nevertheless, to discontinue the
provision of the canteen facility without the prior agreement of
the Union is a breach of the existing agreement and the Court does
not condone such action. The Court, therefore, recommends that
the canteen facility be re-instated as soon as possible.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88540 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12041
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AN FORAS TALUNTAIS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Provision of canteen service.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1987, the Management of An Foras Taluntais (AFT)
were directed that, in view of the poor budgetary situation, the
impending amalgamation with ACOT and the consequent need for major
staff reductions, the terms of the Government's early retirement/
voluntary redundancy scheme should be offered to all staff
members. In the Farm Centre in Belclare, applications were
received from the two members of the staff canteen. These were
accepted and both retired with effect from 2nd January, 1988. The
canteen was then closed as no staff were available to operate it.
The Union, on behalf of the twenty-three workers employed at the
Centre, requested that the Employer provide a service where at
least one full meal per day is available. Local level discussions
failed to resolve the matter and it was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No settlement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 16th June, 1988 and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court investigation into the dispute was held
in Galway on 13th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Because of the location of the farm centre, the workers are
required to travel an average of 15 miles per day to and from
their work. Therefore, the provision of a canteen which
provides at least for one full meal a day is very important.
Such a service has been a feature of the employment since
1974 and was available before any of the workers concerned
commenced their employment in the Centre.
3.2 The legislation which provides for the amalgamation of AFT
and ACOT states that staff transferred to the new agency are
guaranteed no less favourable terms and conditions "save in
accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any
recognised trade unions or staff associations". The existing
legislation also provides for changes in conditions by
collective agreement. Neither of these important legal
guarantees to staff, acknowledged freely and repeatedly by
management, have been observed in this instance. This
unilateral discontinuation of canteen services is directly
contrary to agreed terms and conditions of employment.
3.3 Canteen facilities and conditions have been fought for over
the years and form an intrinsic and established influence on
staff welfare at the various AFT centres around the country.
3.4 The Government's early retirement/voluntary redundancy
proposals accord management the sole prerogative to decide
the acceptance or otherwise of all applications for voluntary
redundancy. The Government policy of no recruitment within
the public sector is well known and exercised and must exert
a critical influence on any such decision-making. Management
cannot but recognise that the options to avoid this
confrontation were available to them. It would appear
obvious, therefore, that these options were ignored and
presumably no cognisance was taken of the industrial
ramifications of the selection of the canteen staff for
voluntary redundancy.
3.5 The Union recommended that further action be deferred pending
the establishment of the new body but this was rejected by
the workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Employer did investigate all possible options with a view
to maintaining a reasonable level of canteen services at
Belclare. However, none of the possible courses of action
proved feasible. Under the embargo on recruitment in the
Public Service, the Employer is precluded from hiring new
staff and suitable staff were not available either in
Belclare or elsewhere who were willing and able to be
redeployed, whilst the costs involved precluded the
introduction of outside caterers. In these circumstances the
Employer adopted the only realistic course open, which was to
make the canteen facilities available to staff members for
their own use.
4.2 Services in all the Employer's other canteens have also been
affected to varying degrees due to the early retirement/
voluntary redundancy scheme.
4.3 The Employer understood that the claim would not be processed
until the new body, Teagasc, was set up and was surprised
when the Union decided to refer the dispute to the Court at a
stage when the establishment of Teagasc was being finalised.
Teagasc was formally established on 8th September, 1988 but
decisions regarding its staff, resources, facilities, etc,
have yet to be taken.
4.4 Due to the cutbacks in financing and the time limits on the
early retirement/voluntary redundancy scheme the Employer
decided not to refuse any applicants.
4.5 The workers also have access to a smaller canteen facility
which is regularly maintained.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider that the withdrawal of canteen
facilities is covered by the legislative guarantees relating to
the formation of Teagasc. Nevertheless, to discontinue the
provision of the canteen facility without the prior agreement of
the Union is a breach of the existing agreement and the Court does
not condone such action. The Court, therefore, recommends that
the canteen facility be re-instated as soon as possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th September, 1988 John M Horgan
RB/PG ----------------
Chairman