Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95207 Case Number: LCR14803 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;IMPACT |
Method of filling permanent clerical/administrative posts.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that given the length of service of the
employees here concerned it would be inequitable to require that
they enter an open competition for permanent
clerical/administrative posts.
The Court considers that notwithstanding any difficulties which
might arise in individual cases the proposition made by the
Industrial Relations Officer (letter 22nd February, 1995 refers)
should be accepted as the most reasonable method of resolving the
present dispute.
The parties in discussion should seek to resolve any difficulties
which may arise in individual cases.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95207 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14803
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TEAGASC
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Method of filling permanent clerical/administrative posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. There is a practice in Teagasc to employ long term
temporary staff to carry out clerical work in
circumstances where the Department of Agriculture, Food
and Forestry has not sanctioned permanent posts.
Following a meeting between the Unions and Teagasc in
September, 1994, it was indicated by Teagasc that
sanction for twenty one permanent posts currently held
by long term temporary staff was imminent.
2. The Unions' were advised that the existing long term
temporary staff would have to compete for these posts
through public competition. The Unions' are objecting
to this and are seeking to have the temporary staff in
question made permanent.
3. As no agreement was possible between the Unions' and
Teagasc the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 22nd
February, 1995. The following proposals for settling
the dispute were put to both sides by the Labour
Relations Commission:
1. "Those temporary employees covered by this claim
who went forward for contract posts and who
underwent an interview process and who are now on
the subsequent panel will be confined in their
posts as permanent employees of Teagasc without
being required to undergo any further selection
process.
2. All other temporary employees covered by this claim
will undergo a confined interview, that is,
confined to these specific employees.
3. This is subject to the agreement between Teagasc
and IMPACT regarding the recommendation of a Rights
Commissioner concerning a situation in West Cork".
The Unions' recommended acceptance of the proposals to
their members. The Industrial Relations Officer
recognised that Teagasc was not in a position to respond
immediately and he gave it until 8th March, 1995 to
respond. Teagasc did not respond. The dispute was then
referred to the Labour Court on 20th March, 1995 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on 29th May, 1995 (the earliest date suitable to both
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Teagasc has a moral duty to look after the temporary
staff in their employment, some of whom have up to seven
years service. They have kept the organisation
functioning smoothly during times of change and
cutbacks. The temporary staff have been ineligible for
promotion or upgrading even though it is acknowledged
that they are carrying out higher duties. They have
campaigned to have their positions made permanent and it
is unacceptable that they be required to compete for
their own jobs.
2. There are precedents for confined competitions in the
public service to appoint similar staff to permanent
positions. In 1982, ACOT held two simultaneous
competitions, one confined to serving temporary officers
with one year's service and the other by public
competition. This procedure was repeated again in 1984
and 1987. In another instance the Labour Court
recommended that SFADCO agree to appoint seven named
contract employees who had been in full time employment
for a considerable number of years to permanent
positions. Following a review of staffing levels in
EOLAS long term temporary staff were appointed to
permanent posts.
3. If Teagasc proceed to fill the temporary posts through
open competition it is possible that some of the long
term temporary staff will not be successful and,
therefore, lose their jobs. The temporary staff are
covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1993 and this
point has been acknowledged by management. The Act
gives legal protection to staff who have had a series of
renewable contracts against unfair dismissal or unfair
selection for redundancy. While Teagasc was awaiting
sanction for the filling of permanent posts it held a
competition for a further series of contract posts.
4. At the Labour Relations Commission, proposals were put
forward to resolve the dispute. The Unions' considered
the proposals fair and reasonable to the long term
temporary staff. However, Teagasc did not respond to
the proposals, and made no further contact with the
Labour Relations Commission in relation to the dispute.
TEAGASC'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Teagasc is in dispute with the Unions' in respect of the
method of filling certain clerical/administrative posts.
There are some temporary staff who were recruited
without the sanctions of the Ministers for Agriculture,
Food and Forestry and Finance. Sanction is required
under Section 8(1) of the Agriculture (Research,
Training and Advice) Act, 1988 and accordingly are
illegally recruited. The Controller and Auditor General
has criticised Teagasc for its method of recruitment.
At present there are twenty staff for which no approval
has been sanctioned and for which there are no
authorised posts.
2. Teagasc is looking for sanction for additional clerical
staff. Its organisational needs are being assessed in
conjunction with the Departments of Agriculture, Food
and Forestry and Finance. If the additional posts are
sanctioned they can only be filled by open competition.
The temporary staff can have no prior claim to these
posts. Teagasc accepts that it acted without proper
statutory authority in recruiting temporary staff.
Teagasc is obliged to operate its recruitment procedures
in accordance with the best practice in the public
service. This requires Teagasc to allow all qualified
persons to apply for vacancies within the organisation.
3. There is no valid reason why people outside Teagasc
should be stopped from applying for posts and securing
employment in a public body which is funded to a
significant extent by the taxpayer and the European
Union. Some illegally recruited staff have already had
their employment terminated. The temporary staff
affected by this dispute will have the opportunity to
compete for any new permanent posts sanctioned for
Teagasc.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that given the length of service of the
employees here concerned it would be inequitable to require that
they enter an open competition for permanent
clerical/administrative posts.
The Court considers that notwithstanding any difficulties which
might arise in individual cases the proposition made by the
Industrial Relations Officer (letter 22nd February, 1995 refers)
should be accepted as the most reasonable method of resolving the
present dispute.
The parties in discussion should seek to resolve any difficulties
which may arise in individual cases.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th June, 1995 Tom McGrath
L.W./D.T. -----------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.