Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92786 Case Number: LCR13940 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: F.A.S. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of pilot schemes for apprentices.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that for a number of reasons two issues
have become confused and should be dealt with separately
The Court takes the view that it is up to the Union to pursue its
claim made first in March last and at this stage the services of
an industrial engineer are not required simply to quantify the
amount of the claim. Such professional assistance would be more
useful, if, as is likely the parties have through negotiations
refined and reduced the differences between them.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union formulate a claim
and proceed to negotiations without further delay. It would not
be prepared to recommend that any time limit or further
restrictions be placed on such negotiations.
On the question of the New Apprenticeship the Court is of the
opinion that since the schemes proposed are Pilot schemes and thus
are of their nature subject to modification in the light of
experience in their operation, and that further, since the
instructors themselves have had such a considerable input into the
design of the schemes themselves there is no valid reason to
further delay this implementation. The Court therefore recommends
that the Pilot schemes are started at the very earliest
opportunity.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92786 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13940
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(5), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: F.A.S.
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of pilot schemes for
apprentices.
BACKGROUND:
2. F.A.S., who have a statutory responsibility for
apprenticeship, is in the process of carrying out a major review
of apprenticeship training and is developing a New Apprenticeship
System. This is being done at the request of the Minister for
Labour and in accordance with provisions made in the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). Industry, Trade Unions
and Education have major inputs into the review.
3. It was decided that F.A.S. should run Pilot Schemes in two
trades (bricklaying and motor) commencing with Phases 1 and 2 of
the proposed new system. A discussion document was presented in
1989. Submissions were received from a wide range of
representative bodies (including the Union) and from some
individuals. In September, 1991 it was announced that a new
apprenticeship system had been agreed by the Social Partners under
P.E.S.P. and would be introduced in 1992. The date for
implementation was deferred to 1993 to facilitate the introduction
of a new funding arrangement. A National Apprentice Advisory
Committee (N.A.A.C.) was set up to oversee the implementation of
the New System.
4. During the course of 1991 F.A.S. met with the Union to brief
them on progress. In October, 1991 F.A.S. outlined details of the
proposed Pilot Schemes planned to commence with apprentices
starting Phase (1) in their Companies in January, 1992 and Phase
(2) in the Training Centres in February/March, 1992. Draft
proposals of the new course curricula were submitted to the Union.
The Union advised F.A.S. that a decision on the Pilot Schemes
could not be given until a complete Programme could be assessed.
5. On 5th March, 1992 the Union submitted a claim for a review of
salaries and conditions of employment on behalf of the
instructors. The claim was based on changes in the grade since
the implementation of a 1982 Productivity Agreement resulting in
increased responsibilities and workloads arising from course
structures and the proposed new Apprenticeship Scheme. F.A.S.
rejected the claim. Further meetings were held between the
parties following which F.A.S. indicated its intention to proceed
with Phases 1 and 2 of the Apprenticeship Scheme, with effect from
November, 1992 and to recruit apprentices for same.
6. The Union responded that it would not co-operate with the new
Scheme until they had details of the complete programme and an
examination by a Union Productivity Expert of changes which had
taken place since the 1982 Productivity Agreement. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 5th November,
1992. A conciliation conference was held on 2nd December, 1992.
As no agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of
the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on 22nd December, 1992. Efforts
to arrange an early date for a hearing were unsuccessful and the
Court requested the parties to attend an investigation on 14th
January, 1993 under Section 26(5) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Court hearing took place on 21st January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The instructors are refusing to co-operate with the new
Scheme until they have full details on the proposed
development programme. To-date this information has not been
provided.
2. The Pilot Schemes are forerunners to a new apprenticeship
system and the instructors fear that if apprentices were
recruited it would be used as a lever to implement agreement.
3. Grievances regarding previous changes, particularly over
joint certification and regionalisation, have not been
addressed. Consequently before any agreement is reached a
Productivity Expert should be appointed to examine the impact
of joint certification, regionalisation and the New
Apprenticeship System on the duties of the instructors since
the implementation of the 1982 Productivity Agreement.
4. A Monitoring Committee should be set up to review and
oversee the effect of the New Apprenticeship Scheme.
Negotiations on a revised Productivity Agreement should be
undertaken during Phase 1 of the New Scheme.
F.A.S.'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The New Apprenticeship System is of national importance
and its introduction was agreed as part of P.E.S.P. of which
the Union was a party.
2. The Pilot Schemes are an essential part of the New System
and are necessary in its development.
3. The co-operation of the staff is essential in the
recruitment of apprentices in their respective Companies for
Phase 1 of the Pilots which lasts for twelve weeks and should
have commenced on 2nd November, 1992. Co-operation is also
required to run Phase 2 in the Training Centres. The period
between Phase 1 and Phase 2 should be used by the parties to
deal with operational difficulties regarding Phase 2. A
commitment has been given to carry out a full review of Phases
1 and 2 before commencing further trades under the New System.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that for a number of reasons two issues
have become confused and should be dealt with separately
The Court takes the view that it is up to the Union to pursue its
claim made first in March last and at this stage the services of
an industrial engineer are not required simply to quantify the
amount of the claim. Such professional assistance would be more
useful, if, as is likely the parties have through negotiations
refined and reduced the differences between them.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union formulate a claim
and proceed to negotiations without further delay. It would not
be prepared to recommend that any time limit or further
restrictions be placed on such negotiations.
On the question of the New Apprenticeship the Court is of the
opinion that since the schemes proposed are Pilot schemes and thus
are of their nature subject to modification in the light of
experience in their operation, and that further, since the
instructors themselves have had such a considerable input into the
design of the schemes themselves there is no valid reason to
further delay this implementation. The Court therefore recommends
that the Pilot schemes are started at the very earliest
opportunity.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
3rd February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.