Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90159 Case Number: LCR12864 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD GAIS DUBLIN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union that existing vacancies be filled by current temporary staff and that there be no termination of temporary contracts prior to agreement on the implementation of the Company's Business Plan.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has noted the unsatisfactory position in which the
temporary employees (among others) find themselves as a result of
the difficulties which the Management of the Company have had in
preparing its Business Plan. However, notwithstanding this
position, the Court recommends that the Company agree to the
appointment to permanent status of the seven employees who have
secured permanent positions. Further, should it not have proved
possible for the Company to present its Plan to its employees by
the 30th June, 1990, the Union should be free to re-present its
other claims to the Court for further consideration.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90159 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12864
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BORD GAIS DUBLIN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that existing vacancies be filled by
current temporary staff and that there be no termination of
temporary contracts prior to agreement on the implementation of
the Company's Business Plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1986, the Company was put into receivership and in
October of that year a Viability Agreement was negotiated between
the unions and the Receiver. Staffing levels were included in
this agreement. The agreed method by which the Company may employ
temporary staff is contained in clause 11 of the Comprehensive
Work Agreement and is as follows:-
"11. Temporary Employment.
11.1 The Company reserves the right to employ temporary staff, to
meet particular short term requirements. Use of temporary
staff will be subject to consultation and agreement at local
level, such agreement not be to unreasonably withheld.
11.2 A temporary employee is one employed especially to carry out
work of this nature and is not a probationer for permanent
employment.
11.3 Temporary employees may apply for suitable permanent
vacancies which arise during temporary employment in such
cases, temporary service will be taken into account when
applications are being considered, but will not guarantee
appointment.
11.4 Temporary staff will be paid the appropriate Company rate
for the work involved, but Company benefits will not
normally apply.
11.5 Temporary employees will be informed of duration of
employment which, in any event, will not exceed twelve
months, except in special circumstances (e.g. completion of
a fixed term project). However, the Company reserves the
right to terminate such employment by the issue of a week's
notice or by payment in lieu, subject to the terms of
minimum notice in the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment
Act, 1973"
This clause covered the employment of temporary staff only. The
practice of employment of permanent staff was that people were
employed as probationers, with a view to permanent employment.
After three months satisfactory service they were appointed as
permanent. The Union claims that this practice has been
discontinued by the Company and that no-one has been employed on
this basis since 1986. The Union further alleges that the Company
is advertising vacancies which had been identified as being
permanent posts in the Viability Agreement but is refusing to give
the successful applicants (usually temporary staff) the permanent
status that goes with these posts. Following the failure of local
discussions on this matter, the Union referred the dispute to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 14th February,
1990. A conciliation conference on the 15th March failed to
resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held on the 24th April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At no stage has the Company denied the substance of the
Union's case. It has simply argued that its Business Plan is
in the process of being prepared and that until such time as
the Plan is ready to be put to the Union, it is not prepared
to give the permanent status that successful applicants for
permanent jobs should receive.
2. The Business Plan was first promised by the Company in
February, 1989, and at regular intervals since. At the
conciliation conference in March it was stated that it would
be presented to the Union in mid-April. This deadline has
also passed and the Plan still has not materialised.
3. Since the Viability Agreement was implemented in 1986, the
Company has been unable to operate without the use of a large
proportion of temporary staff. Management cannot sustain an
argument to prove that work-needs do not justify the granting
of permanent status.
4. Of the total of 29 temporary workers, six have
successfully applied for permanent grade A positions and one
for a permanent clerical assistant post. However, they have
not been given the permanent status that should go with their
appointments. In addition, there are four further permanent
positions vacant which the Company refuses to advertise (two
grade A posts and two clerical assistant posts).
3. 5. The Company must comply with negotiated agreements by:-
- conceding permanent status to the seven employees who have
secured permanent positions.
- advertising and filling the four permanent vacancies and
conferring permanent status on the successful applicants.
- confirming the remaining temporary staff in employment or
at least until the review of the Business Plan is
negotiated to finality.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1986, the entire position has radically changed for
all employees in Dublin Gas. Following Receivership the
Company was taken over by Bord Gais Eireann. A new General
Manager was appointed to Dublin Gas in 1987. Bord Gais
Eireann also took over the Gas Utilities in Cork, Limerick,
Clonmel and Waterford. A New Chief Executive was appointed in
November, 1988. His first task was to look at the operation
of the various Gas Utilities including Dublin and to draw up a
Business Plan. In drawing up this Plan, the Chief Executive,
in conjunction with the Managers in the different Utilities,
examined the various functions carried out by the Utilities
with a view to intergrating functions such as Accounting,
Transmission, Purchasing etc. The integrated business systems
necessary to support these changes, carry a substantial
capital cost and have to be evaluated and approved at Bord
level. In 1989, a new Chairman was appointed to the Board and
major changes occurred at Board level. These changes
obviously had an effect on the formulation of the Business
Plan.
2. The Business Plan is at an advanced stage at this point in
time and Management hope to be in a position in the near
future to put a set of proposals to the unions which will
enable the Business Plan to be implemented.
3. In the period from 1987 to the current time, the Company
has maintained temporary employees on its payroll. In most
cases, temporary employees are being used in non-established
positions. In February, 1989, following meetings with the
Union, the Company agreed to create three additional permanent
positions and invited temporary employees to apply for these.
Three temporary employees were appointed to these established
posts following interviews. At that time, the Company
indicated to the Union that it was not in a position to give
further commitment regarding temporary employees until
finalisation of the Business Plan. In the meantime, a number
of temporary employees applied for and were successful in
being appointed to permanent positions within the Company.
Their status as temporary employees remains pending the
finalisation of the Business Plan.
4. 4. Temporary employees enjoy the same conditions as permanent
employees including annual increments, except entry to the
pension scheme, the rules of which do not allow temporary
staff to become members.
5. Management respectfully requests that the Court rejects
the Union's position and supports the Company's view that the
problems associated with the continued use of temporary staff
be resolved in the context of the implementation of the
Business Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has noted the unsatisfactory position in which the
temporary employees (among others) find themselves as a result of
the difficulties which the Management of the Company have had in
preparing its Business Plan. However, notwithstanding this
position, the Court recommends that the Company agree to the
appointment to permanent status of the seven employees who have
secured permanent positions. Further, should it not have proved
possible for the Company to present its Plan to its employees by
the 30th June, 1990, the Union should be free to re-present its
other claims to the Court for further consideration.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___18th___May,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman