Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91116 Case Number: LCR13229 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FORAS AISEANNA SAOTHAIR - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the replacement of a section head in Waterford/Wexford.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the Management's proposal is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91116 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13229
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: FORAS AISEANNA SAOTHAIR
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the replacement of a section head in
Waterford/Wexford.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Authority operate 2 training centres in the South East
Region, in Waterford and Wexford. Up to early 1990 the Waterford
centre was staffed by 6 section heads and Wexford was staffed by
one of the section heads travelling from Waterford on 1 day per
week. The Wexford centre was set up in 1973 and is operated as a
temporary centre attached to the Waterford. At present it
operates 2 courses and it is planned to double this figure in the
near future with a view to establishing the centre on a more
permanent footing.
Management are of the view that the present method of supervising
the Wexford centre is inadequate. It is proposed to assign a
section head to Wexford on a full time basis, in order to provide
supervision, security of premises, equipment and materials and to
develop the full potential of the centre. A promotion in early
1990 of a section head at Waterford provided the opportunity to
assign a newly promoted section head to Wexford on a full time
basis leaving 5 section heads to operate Waterford.
The Union is unwilling to agree to the change. It considers that
the present level of supervision is adequate and the transfer of a
section head from Waterford will reduce the staffing level there.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 8th of October, 1990 and
the 14th of January 1991. At the second conference the Authority
made a final offer as set out below.
1. The Authority will appoint a permanent section head to
Wexford.
2. It will advertise the vacancy.
3. It will appoint a third instructor to Wexford.
4. Following the appointment of the instructor it will
appoint a section head but not earlier than 3/4/'91.
The present arrangement will continue until the new section head
takes up duty.
The Union after consideration of the offer sought a full Labour
Court hearing to which the Authority agreed. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 26 February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Wexford centre commenced operations in 1973 as a
temporary centre. In the intervening 18 years, the centre
has been managed by section heads attending from Waterford.
This has been done in a very efficient manner. The
Authority, is now seeking to increase the workload at
Waterford training centre and increase the number of courses
at Wexford by 2. In an effort to be as helpful as possible
the Union has agreed to review the situation when the two
extra courses come on stream in Wexford. As it stands the
loss of a section head in Waterford places an unacceptable
burden on the 5 remaining workers.
2. In addition the Authority proposes to increase the
number of courses at Waterford by 2, thereby further
increasing the workload. This should be seen in the context
of there having been 8 section heads in the Waterford centre
prior to the merger of ANCO, YEA and the NMS. The current
proposal would mean only 5 section heads in Waterford. After
the first conciliation conference, it was agreed that
Management and Union should discuss the matter at a local
level on the basis of a discussion document (details supplied
to the Court). The document clearly set out the amount of
courses which would be allocated and accepted by the workers.
If this document had been agreed upon there would have been
no dispute as there would be an increase in workload.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management has secured sanction to fill the vacancy of a
recently promoted section head which in the normal course
would not be filled because of the significant reduction in
activity in the Waterford Training Centre in the last few
years. There has been a reduction of 11 courses and 10
instructors since 1986. Although some limited recruitment
may take place in the near future, it is envisaged that
overall there will be 8 less instructors. The long due
appointment of a section head to Wexford free's up a a
section head from supervisory duties of 1 day per week.
Management are satisfied that the 6 courses which had been
covered by the recently promoted section head in Waterford
can be adequately covered by the 5 remaining staff.
2. It is important to note that the Waterford/Wexford
region will still have 6 section heads following the new
appointment. The development of the Wexford centre is an
important aspect of the Authority's policy and the centre
will never achieve permanent status unless a section head is
assigned to develop it. All other staff in Wexford are
assigned there full time and with the proposed increase in
activities it is important that it is supervised on a full
time basis.
3. This appointment has been under discussion since early
1990 and the Union by the proposals at both conciliation
conferences demonstrated that it has no principled objection
to a section head being appointed to Wexford. There is no
valid argument as to why this should not be done immediately.
Indeed the need for a section head was further highlighted
last year following investigations into misappropriation of
goods supplied to the centre which subsequently resulted in a
Wexford staff member leaving the organisation. Management is
satisfied that in order to ensure a proper level of day to
day management of the centre's activities, the presence of a
section head is now essential.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the Management's proposal is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th March, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman