Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88853 Case Number: LCR12313 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ST. CANICE'S CREDIT UNION LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a job sharing scheme for six permanent staff.
Recommendation:
6. The Court notes that the Board of the Credit Union did not
consider it would serve any useful purpose to attend the Court
hearing. They did however submit a statement outlining their
objections to the Union's proposal.
Having considered the detailed submission made by the Union the
Court recommends that the Board of Management agree to negotiate
with the Union proposals for implementing a job sharing scheme on
a trial basis at no additional cost to the Board.
Should the parties so require the Court will make the services of
an Industrial Relations Officer available to assist in these
negotiations.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88853 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12313
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ST. CANICE'S CREDIT UNION LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a job sharing scheme
for six permanent staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union first lodged the claim for the introduction of a job
sharing scheme with the Company in April, 1987. The Company
rejected the claim in May, 1987. The claim was subsequently
re-activated and was the subject of numerous meetings.
3. As no progress was possible the Union referred the claim to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. The Company
declined an invitation to attend a conciliation conference. The
Union then requested an investigation and recommendation by the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing was held in Carlow on 28th February, 1989.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
4. The Company, by letter dated 16th February, 1989, informed the
Court that it would not be attending or represented at the
hearing as it would serve no useful purpose. The letter also
stated inter alia that the Company had given careful consideration
to the introduction of a job sharing scheme and rejected same on
the basis that it would lead to a weakening of its services as the
present staff were very experienced. The Company stressed that
its primary duty is to its members and anything that might reduce
service to them is unacceptable to the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union has made it clear that it is prepared to
structure the job sharing scheme to suit the interests of both
parties. It is envisaged that the scheme would operate
initially on a trial basis for a period of 12 months and would
involve no more than two of the permanent staff, so as to
allow both management and the Union to accurately rather than
hpothecically determine if there would be any difficulties
with the scheme.
5. 2. The work schedule would be flexible and all entitlements
regarding pay and conditions would be on a strictly
proportional basis. Indeed the nature of the workers' duties
lends itself to a job sharing arrangement (details supplied to
the Court).
3. While the scheme entails no additional cost to the
employer (details supplied to the Court) it will result in the
creation of an additional permanent job which is in line with
the terms of the Programme for National Recovery.
4. The job sharing schemes have been successfully undertaken
by other local employments.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court notes that the Board of the Credit Union did not
consider it would serve any useful purpose to attend the Court
hearing. They did however submit a statement outlining their
objections to the Union's proposal.
Having considered the detailed submission made by the Union the
Court recommends that the Board of Management agree to negotiate
with the Union proposals for implementing a job sharing scheme on
a trial basis at no additional cost to the Board.
Should the parties so require the Court will make the services of
an Industrial Relations Officer available to assist in these
negotiations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___10th___March,___1989. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman