FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of evening courses
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns workers who are employed as Education Officers and Enterprise Advisors. In early 1998, the Authority informed the Union that it intended to offer Certificate in Farming Courses (CIF) from October, 1998 on an evening basis, as it was not possible to recruit a viable number of students for a CIF day course. The Union claims that the Authority's proposal represents a major re-structuring of the training programme and a significant change in the workers' conditions of employment, which is not covered by any current agreements. It seeks negotiations on the proposed changes and is claiming a realistic compensation package in return for their implementation. The authority contends that the changes are minor in nature. Education Officers may be required to give approximately 100 hours p.a. and Enterprise Officers approximately 25 hours p.a. The agreed provisions of the Staff Scheme states that extra payment or leave in lieu may be allowed for formal teaching, lectures, demonstrations in excess of 25 hours p.a. The agreed overtime rate is the rate paid to part-time teachers in the VEC's - currently £16.44 per hour. The Union claims that overtime should be paid at the rate of T½ and 2T. At local level discussions Management agreed to drop the 25 hour threshold (for calculation of time in lieu) and allow a maximum of up to 2 hours in recognition of travel and preparation (only for time in lieu at the discretion of local management). Overtime payments as sought by the Union were not conceded. This was unacceptable to the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 17th August, 1998. Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th of September, 1998.
A Court hearing was held on the 22nd September, 1998. A letter of recommendation was issued on the 30th September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers seek the application of the normal overtime premium (i.e. T½, 2T) and the dropping of the restriction of payment to the contact hours only (i.e. time spent getting to and setting-up venues would also have to be paid for). The involvement of workers in new arrangements should be voluntary only.
3. 2. The Authority is unreasonable in believing that, because the Enterprise Advisors and Education Officers are professionals, the issue of compensation for working unsociable hours should not arise. Management fails to recognise the distinction between irregular or "jagged" attendance patterns and structured night and weekend work which will be required.
3. 3. The Authority suggests that this issue is resolved by quoting terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.) (Clause 2 (iii)). However, the Authority ignores the aspects of the Agreement which deal with attendance patterns, flexible arrangements and the voluntary nature of workers' co-operation.
3. 4. If the new arrangements are to be implemented by October, the Authority is not conforming with its obligations under the P.C.W., Agreement Clause 2 (iii) of which provides for adequate consultation in sufficient time in advance of any significant proposed changes, and also provides for discussions at local level. A major change is proposed. The issues are of fundamental significance for the working conditions of the employees concerned. The Authority has failed to address the appropriate recognition of the workers' needs.
3. 5. A fair payment system must be implemented and workers' participation in the proposed new arrangement should be voluntary.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An individual Enterprise Advisor will normally not have an involvement in excess of 25 hours p.a. as preparation work etc., can be carried out during normal hours. Such a requirement is a minimal imposition on a professional officer. Work outside normal hours has been a feature of the advisory job for many years, and provided the justification for the introduction of the present overtime arrangements in 1979. The related grades in the Department of Agriculture and Food are non-overtime grades in common with other grades in the public service.
4. 2. Normally one Education Officer acts as course director for each CIF class. This is the primary purpose of the post and accounts for most of the employee's working time. If a viable CIF day class no longer exists the justification for an Education Officer to undertake evening CIF courses, where viable numbers for a day course do not exist, is reasonable.
4. 3. The CIF evening courses should be operated on the basis of flexible working arrangements as provided in Clause 2 (iii) of the P.C.W. Agreement. The implementation of this clause for Advisory/Training staff cost Teagasc £1.4m. The justification for such payments derived from the commitment given by staff to co-operate with productivity measures. The position adopted by the Union can only be regarded as a refusal to abide by the terms of an agreement only recently entered into by the Union.
4. 4. In addition to the benefits received under Clause 2 (iii) of the P.C.W. Agreement, Teagasc's professional Advisory/Training staff received a very substantial number of promotions/assimlations under the Chadwick Agreement at a substantial cost to the Authority.
4. 5. The Union's claim that the overtime rate should be changed from the existing VEC rate to a rate based on the salary of staff is a new cost increasing claim and would have to be accommodated within the provisions of P2000. In this regard the 2% which may be payable as a result of local level bargaining is not intended to be used for cases such as this
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the parties should meet, as a matter of urgency, to discuss arrangements for the introduction of evening classes in Certificate in Farming (CIF). The Court recommends that such discussions should be based on the following guidelines suggested by the Court:-
(i) The requirement to work in excess of 25 hours per annum before time off in lieu applies should be dropped for regular rostered extra attendance (i.e. CIF evening and weekend courses.)
(ii) The Court acknowledges that Teagasc has already agreed that account will be taken of time actually spent on travelling and setting up for these courses, within an overall limit of 2 hours.
(iii) Time spent on CIF evening and weekend classes should be compensated for by giving time off in lieu on an hour for hour basis. Employees should be facilitated with such time off in lieu within a specified agreed time period.
(iv) Teagasc has indicated that the CIF programme of classes can be accommodated within 35 hours per week. In the event that more than 35 hours on average are worked per week, a rate should be agreed between the parties for extra hours worked.
(v) The Court recognises the need for Teagasc to facilitate individual concerns. However, as both parties accept the need to schedule these courses in the evening and at weekends, every effort should be made to meet this objective.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
October, 1998______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.