FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Productivity measures required for payment of 5.5% under Clause 2 (iii) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 30 workers employed in Information System Services (ISS) in Trinity College. The workers have a pay link with the Executive Officer (EO) and Higher Executive Officer (HEO) grades in the Civil Service.
The Union is seeking a pay increase of 5.5% under Clause 2 (iii) of the PCW for productivity which, it claims, the workers gave in 1996. The Union wrote to management on the 5th of March, 1996, and believes that an agreement was reached on payment for productivity. The College replied on the 12th of March, 1996, stating that negotiation on Clause 2 (iii) could begin once a Union recognition dispute was resolved. The College's case is that no agreement was made in March, 1996, and that if the workers are to receive the 5.5% pay increase, further negotiations will have to take place.
There was a considerable amount of correspondence between the parties before they held a meeting on the 3rd of November, 1998. When no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 19th of April, 1999. Again, there was no agreement and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th of April, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of May, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was agreed in March, 1996, that negotiations at local level had resulted in major re-structuring and efficiency increases in the College within the framework of Clause 2 (iii) of the PCW. It was also agreed that the 5.5% pay increase would be paid to the workers for this re-structuring.
2. The Union had to wait almost 3 years before it was informed by the College that no deal had been done in March, 1996, and that further negotiations and productivity would have to take place before the 5.5% increase would be paid.
3. The Union is prepared to discuss any new productivity measures that the College may propose but the PCW payment must be made first. The College extracted a productivity deal without paying for it in 1996. It cannot now expect a "second bite of the cherry".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College's reply on the 12th of March, 1996, to the Union's claim of the 6th of March, states that negotiations on Clause 2 (iii) of PCW would begin once the Union recognition dispute was resolved. It did not state that any agreement had been reached. The Information System Services staff were only one of a number of groups in the College that management had such discussions with.
2. Wage negotiations are conducted by representatives of College management and of staff representative groups in the staff office. Any agreement must be made at staff office level, not informal discussion at local level.
3. In cases where flexibility and co-operation have been demonstrated by staff during the period of PCW, the College is prepared to acknowledge this. It is not seeking a "second bite of the cherry".
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given serious consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
It is difficult for the Court to assess the flexibility and level of co-operation given by the Information System Services staff, and to put such concessions into perspectivevis-a-visthe concessions given by other sections in the College, in return for PCW Clause 2 (iii).
Therefore, the Court recommends that IPC or another such qualified body should assess the concessions given and quantify management objectives as outlined in the 30th April, 1999, document with a view to determining their value, in terms of PCW Clause 2 (iii) concessions. In coming to a conclusion, the assessment should take into consideration all aspects of the restructuring.
This exercise should be carried out as soon as possible, and should be completed by 28th of September, 1999 at the latest. If there are any issues outstanding following completion of this exercise, they may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd June, 1999.______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.