Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9134 Case Number: LCR13223 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the conditions for filling consequential vacancies arising from the introduction of a proposed job sharing scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recommends that a pilot scheme of job sharing be
introduced for a period of 12 months.
The conditions as outlined by the Company in their letter of 14th
June, 1990 be the basis for the job sharing scheme subject to the
following:-
Clause 6. to be re-worded as follows:-
"6. A decision by the Board to allow staff members to
participate in job sharing will not result in automatic
recruitment in the event of a vacancy arising.
In the event that by the manner of operation of the scheme,
agreed manning levels of 82 are affected or likely to be
affected, these will be dealt with in accordance with Clause
4(I)(III) of the Company/Union agreement".
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9134 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13223
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the conditions for filling consequential
vacancies arising from the introduction of a proposed job sharing
scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under existing arrangements there is an agreed manning level
of 82 clerical workers in the Board. In 1989, the Union sought
the introduction of a job sharing scheme for clerical grades.
Following local negotiations the Board indicated that it was
prepared to introduce a job sharing scheme. Both parties agreed
that it should have an officially agreed framework. Following
further discussions agreement could not be reached on the proposed
conditions for the filling of consequential vacancies arising from
the introduction of a job sharing scheme. The Board claimed that
there should be no guaranteed replacement of staff as a
consequence of job sharing while the Union claimed that any such
vacancies must be filled. As no agreement could be reached at
local level the matter was referred in May 1990 to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 28th May, 1990 and the Union amended its
claim to a claim that vacancies created as a consequence of a job
sharing scheme must be filled in order to maintain the agreed
manning level of 82. While staff numbers remained at or above 82
recruitment to fill consequential vacancies would not be
necessary. The conciliation conference was adjourned so that the
parties could consider their respective positions. The Union
wrote to the Board on 13th June, 1990 in order to formally set out
its position in relation to a proposed job sharing scheme. The
Board replied on 14th June, 1990 detailing the conditions for the
operation of a job sharing scheme (details supplied to the Court).
The main dispute between the parties concerns clause 6 of the
Board's letter of 14th June, 1990 which reads as follows:-
"A decision by the Board to allow staff members to
participate in job sharing will not result in automatic
recruitment even if this results in lower manning level than
that currently agreed. The decision to recruit in such
circumstances will be at the sole discretion of the Board".
A further conciliation conference was held on 22nd November, 1990
and was adjourned so that the parties could consider the following
amendment to clause 6 which was proposed by the Industrial
Relations Officer:-
"The Board recognises the right of the Union to formulate any
claim on behalf of its members and where agreement cannot be
reached, to refer the matter to a third party in accordance
with existing agreement".
This amendment was acceptable to the Board but was rejected by the
Union. No agreement could be reached and the matter was referred
on 14th January, 1991 to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Labour Court investigation took place on
4th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Job sharing schemes have proven benefits for employees
and employers. They help to eliminate discrimination in a
practical manner. There are only a small number of staff
employed by the Board who are interested in job sharing.
The Board should show goodwill and negotiate a mutually
acceptable scheme.
2. In negotiating a job sharing scheme regard must be taken
of the existing agreement on a manning level of 82. The
agreed manning level arises from productivity negotiations
between the parties. Other bodies who operate job sharing
schemes do not have agreed negotiated manning levels. The
Board's attempt to introduce a productivity element into a
job sharing scheme, which could reduce the agreed manning
level of 82, is unacceptable.
3. The Board is discriminating against staff who are
seeking the facility of job sharing. It has an existing
agreement in relation to absence/career break schemes whereby
staff granted the facility are automatically replaced. This
demonstrates the inconsistency of the Board's position.
4. In order to reach agreement the Union has moved
significantly from its original claim for full replacement of
staff who avail of job sharing. Although the Board is not
fully committed to the introduction of job sharing it should
facilitate its staff by negotiating an acceptable scheme
which could be introduced on a pilot basis for a 12 month
period.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 7 of the current agreement on manning levels
provides that there will be no further claims relating to
remuneration or conditions of service before 31st December,
1991. The Union's claim for the introduction of a job
sharing scheme is a change in conditions of service and is
not in accordance with the agreement. In an effort to show
goodwill and accommodate staff the Board is prepared to allow
a limited job sharing arrangement, subject to the conditions
set out in the Board's letter of 14th June, 1990 together
with the amendment suggested by the Industrial Relations
Officer.
2. The Board is not attempting to use the Union's claim for
job sharing as a means of achieving a reduction in staff
numbers. If the Board requires changes in manning levels it
can use the mechanism provided for in the current agreement.
The Board is not seeking to change conditions provided for in
the current agreement on manning levels.
3. Many other organisations operate a scheme for job
sharing similar to that proposed by the Board. The intention
of clause 6 of the proposed job sharing scheme is to give the
Board the discretion to examine each case on its merits
before making any decision. In some circumstances automatic
recruitment may not be necessary as the Board may have
sufficient resources to fill vacancies from existing staff.
This does not mean that the Board will not recruit
replacement staff. The recruitment of staff in the context
of a job sharing scheme is a matter entirely for the Board.
4. Under existing agreements the Board could have totally
rejected the Union's claim for the introduction of a job
sharing scheme in any form. In the circumstances the Board's
proposals for such a scheme are reasonable and should be
accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recommends that a pilot scheme of job sharing be
introduced for a period of 12 months.
The conditions as outlined by the Company in their letter of 14th
June, 1990 be the basis for the job sharing scheme subject to the
following:-
Clause 6. to be re-worded as follows:-
"6. A decision by the Board to allow staff members to
participate in job sharing will not result in automatic
recruitment in the event of a vacancy arising.
In the event that by the manner of operation of the scheme,
agreed manning levels of 82 are affected or likely to be
affected, these will be dealt with in accordance with Clause
4(I)(III) of the Company/Union agreement".
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman