Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90614 Case Number: LCR13098 Section / Act: S67 Parties: VOLUNTARY HEALTH INSURANCE BOARD - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning a job-sharing scheme for clerical staff.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied, not-withstanding the lack of a formal joint
review as provided for in the original Job Sharing Agreement, that
the Board and local representatives settled on the terms of the
existing scheme with the clear intent of establishing it as a
permanent system. The Court is also satisfied that those who
applied in the early stages of the scheme's introduction did so
entirely voluntarily and with a full and clear understanding of
the consequences of their choice.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90614 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13098
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: VOLUNTARY HEALTH INSURANCE BOARD
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a job-sharing scheme for clerical staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. In response to a perceived social need the parties entered
into a job-sharing agreement in 1987 (details supplied to the
Court). The agreement was to operate for a trial period from 1st
June, 1986 to 31st December, 1987 when its feasibility and terms
would be reviewed by both parties. Initially three job sharing
posts were established and applications were invited from
interested staff. Applications were received from some staff at
higher grades than the grades of the three job-sharing positions.
Those higher grade applicants who were appointed to lower grade
job-sharing positions were required to revert to the particular
lower grade of those positions. The vacated higher level
positions were advertised and filled by way of the promotion of
other full-time staff. Following the filling of the three initial
job-sharing positions further job-sharing positions were
identified and filled in the same way. The Union recently became
aware that some staff had to opt for a lower grade in order to
participate in the job-sharing scheme. The Union claims that the
staff concerned should not have been forced to opt for lower
grades and therefore should have their grades restored with effect
from the date on which they lost them. The Board rejects the
claim and as no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred on 17th August, 1990 to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
held on 5th October, 1990 at which no agreement was reached and
the matter was referred on 11th October, 1990 to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigation was
held on 22nd November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job-sharing scheme was introduced on a trial basis in
1987 and was due to be reviewed jointly in early 1988.
However a joint review did not take place and although there
is now a de facto permanent scheme in operation, the
conditions of such a scheme have not been agreed. The staff
concerned entered the scheme during the trial period and were
forced to permanently drop grades in order to participate.
This was clearly unfair and should never have occurred.
2. The numbers involved in the trial scheme expanded on a
departmental basis with individual managers approving
job-sharers and jobs to be shared. On application some staff
were told that there would never be job sharing at the higher
level grades and so dropped to lower grades to take up the
trial scheme. As job-sharing is now taking place at higher
level grades than were initially identified the staff
concerned were misled and suffered major loss of earnings and
promotional prospects.
3. Under the scheme the staff are not guaranteed continued
job-sharing and may be compelled to return full-time at their
lower grades.
4. No staff member should have been compelled to drop grades
to participate in job sharing. They should be restored to
their former higher grades from the date on which they lost
them. If they are currently carrying out duties which are
graded at below their former grade they should be red-circled
for the duration of their stay in that job until they are
given job-sharing at their former grade.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. One of the fundamental principals of the job-sharing
scheme introduced in 1987 was that manpower costs would not
increase as a result. The scheme was reviewed in February,
1988 and found to be satisfactory and its permanency was
confirmed. To concede the Union's claim for regrading of
certain staff would result in an increase in manpower costs
which would be contrary to one of the fundamental conditions
of the agreed scheme.
2. When the job-sharing positions were identified the staff
concerned made formal application for the lower grade
job-sharing positions with the full knowledge of the
conditions that would apply. They accepted those conditions
prior to commencement of job-sharing.
3. The staff concerned applied for lower grade job-sharing
vacancies indicating that they were no longer in a position to
work full-time. The positions previously occupied by the
staff concerned are still not deemed suitable for job-sharing
and would require full-time attendance which the workers
concerned have indicated they are not available for.
4. To concede the Union's claim would be contrary to the
Board's equal opportunities policy and would discriminate
against full-time staff. It would also ignore precedent and
practice in the Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied, not-withstanding the lack of a formal joint
review as provided for in the original Job Sharing Agreement, that
the Board and local representatives settled on the terms of the
existing scheme with the clear intent of establishing it as a
permanent system. The Court is also satisfied that those who
applied in the early stages of the scheme's introduction did so
entirely voluntarily and with a full and clear understanding of
the consequences of their choice.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
30th November, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.