FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Incremental credit on appointment, (2) Probation, (3) Suspension/Termination (4) Research work after age 50.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of its "New Blood" programme, Teagasc has recruited a large number of contract research staff in recent years (60 contract, 6 permanent). The Union contends that the contracts of employment offered to new employees in the last two years are considerably different than those offered to research staff in previous years. The Union also claim that the changes were never the subject of discussion between the parties. The issues in dispute are as follows:-
1. Incremental credit on appointment:
The main item in dispute is a clause which states -"one additional increment (up to a maximum of five) could be given for every two years' working experience of direct relevance to the particular post being filled" and "no more than five increments in total may be awarded on recruitment." Previously it was one increment for one year's experience.
2. Probation:
Teagasc has extended the probationary period to two years (if necessary). The Union maintains that there should be a maximum probationary period of one year.
3. Suspension/Termination:
Suspension of permanent staff: The Union objects to a clause in the new contracts wherein the Director can suspend employees on grounds of "continual refusal to obey reasonable instructions or perform work assigned".
Termination (temporary contracts): Teagasc has introduced a clause wherein employees' contracts can be terminated on one week's notice in some cases.
4. Research work after age 50 (permanent contracts):
New contracts contain a clause which states that an employee cannot have an expectation of continuing in research after age 50.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 4th of June, 1997. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1 Incremental credit on appointment:
There was an established practice regarding incremental credit up until two years ago when Teagasc unilaterally changed it. New appointees were not aware of the old practice. In the interests of equality, the same rule should apply to all research staff.
2. Probation:
The original contract on probation was for a period of six months, which could be extended at the discretion of management. There is no reason to extend it to two years. Any attempt to extend it beyond one year is outside the unfair dismissals legislation.
3. Suspension/Termination:
The new clause regarding permanent contracts is additional to an existing clause in the Teagasc contract and is unclear in its scope and operation. It has not been discussed between the parties. The clause in relation to one week's notice for temporary contracts is unfair and should be removed pending negotiation.
4. Research work after age 50:
The new clause is prejudicial and unsuitable. It is based on age discrimination and will not assist Teagasc in managing research activities.
TEAGASC'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Incremental credit on appointment:
Concession of the Union's claim would cost £160,000 approximately and would seriously impact on the research programme. Teagasc's current salary structure compares very favourably with other similar organisations. Employees who accepted job offers were aware of the previous position in relation to incremental credit.
2. Probation:
The reason for possibly extending the probation period to two years is to evaluate, in some cases, the contribution of research staff members, who are often engaged in complex work. If Teagasc had to make a definitive decision at the end of one year it could be a disadvantage to some probationers.
3. Suspension/Termination:
Teagasc has a good record in regard to dismissals. Any termination of employment of a temporary contract researcher would be in accordance with prevailing employment legislation
4. Research work after age 50:
A research programme requires a continual influx of young research staff reflecting the latest ideas/technologies. The provision that employees cannot have an expectation of continuing to work in research beyond age 50 does not affect the tenure of office of the employees when they reach age 50. It simply allows Teagasc to review the appropriateness of the employees continuing to work in the research area, given all the circumstances at the time. Teagasc must be allowed to make the best of its staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court recommends as follows on the four points in dispute:-
1.Incremental credit:Management proposals are not unreasonable and should be accepted.
2.Probation:Normally probation should be for one year. In the event of management deeming a further extension, it should be on the basis of discussion and agreement with the individual and/or the Union.
3.Suspension/The Court notes Management's agreement to enter
Terminationinto discussions with the Union for the purpose of agreeing a Grievance/Disciplinary, including Dismissal Procedure.
4.Research work:It is clear that both parties accept the need for a turnover and age profile in research work. However, the Court supports the Union's view that a stated age is not desirable. A clause in the contract which states that an expectation to continue in research is not open-ended and is subject to review by management from time to time should meet the Management's objectives.
The Court recommends acceptance of the above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
9th October, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.