Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9610 Case Number: LCR15096 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of a job-sharing agreement.
Recommendation:
While there are other issues in the background in relation to
ongoing employment in the particular area, the Court was only
asked to adjudicate on the interpretation of the job-sharing
agreement (paragraph 6).
Having considered all the information before it the Court's
interpretation of the agreement is that:-
(a) in a situation where one half of a job-sharing role becomes
vacant, the remaining job-sharer should have the right to
take up full-time employment in the particular job.
(b) this is subject to the conditions laid down in sub-paragraphs
(i), (ii), and (iii).
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9610 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15096
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of a job-sharing
agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is currently employed in a
job-sharing capacity as a senior technician in the Equine
Forensic Unit (E.F.U.) which carries out analysis for, and is
funded by the Turf Club. The claimant together with another
worker requested that they be employed on a job-sharing basis
in 1988. The College agreed and the parties negotiated a
job-sharing agreement. The workers commenced job sharing at
that time. In 1994, the job sharing partner of the worker
went on sick leave and the worker worked additional hours to
provide cover. In July 1995 the worker's job sharing partner
died. The worker claimed that under the job-sharing
agreement she should be returned to full-time employment.
Management rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 9th January
1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 15th January 1996. A
Court hearing was held on the 26th February 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker requested a return to full-time employment in
accordance with Clause 6 of the job-sharing agreement.
The vacant portion should not be advertised as claimed
by the College but offered to the claimant.
2. Clause 6 of the Agreement provides that staff who were
in full-time positions prior to being appointed to
job-sharing posts will have an opportunity of full-time
employment subject to the following conditions:
(i) the occurrence of a suitable vacancy in the
E.F.U.
(ii) their having worked on a job-sharing basis
for a period of not less than two years
and
(iii) protection of the rights of other
participants in the scheme.
3. The College's arguments in relation to the
interpretation of Clause 6 are untenable. Staff have a
right to return to full-time employment subject to the
conditions laid down in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii).
Any other interpretation would put job sharing staff at
a disadvantage. Where conditions (i), (ii) and (iii)
are met, no advertisement of the post is
required.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The reference to an opportunity of returning to
full-time employment in Clause 6 of the job sharing
agreement was never intended to mean, and was never
interpreted as meaning, that a job-sharer has an
automatic right to return to full-time employment on
request. This would not be practicable in all cases.
2. The College has followed its normal procedures which
require that the vacancy created be advertised
internally in the first instance.
3. An unexpected external factor has placed the filling of
the post in doubt. The E.F.U. was requested by the Turf
Club to submit a competitive tender for the work carried
out. Due to this competitive tendering the E.F.U. is
forced to scrutinise carefully the staff needs in the
area. It is now most likely that anyone appointed to
the post will have a different area of expertise and
different conditions of employment to the claimant.
4. If funding from the Turf Club ceases as a result of work
being awarded to another organisation which has a more
competitive tender, the E.F.U. will be forced to close
down. This would not be in the interests of workers
employed in the E.F.U. including the claimant.
RECOMMENDATION:
While there are other issues in the background in relation to
ongoing employment in the particular area, the Court was only
asked to adjudicate on the interpretation of the job-sharing
agreement (paragraph 6).
Having considered all the information before it the Court's
interpretation of the agreement is that:-
(a) in a situation where one half of a job-sharing role becomes
vacant, the remaining job-sharer should have the right to
take up full-time employment in the particular job.
(b) this is subject to the conditions laid down in sub-paragraphs
(i), (ii), and (iii).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11 March 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.