FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST OLIVER'S PRIMARY SCHOOL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute regarding caretaker's work being carried out by teachers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed as a caretaker in the school for over 20 years. The dispute, the Union claims, concerns the fact that for the last 3 years approximately, a number of teachers have been doing work in the school which is appropriate to the worker concerned. (The Union supplied a list of examples including gardening, painting and cleaning. The Union says that it can supply many more examples.)
A meeting took place on the 12th of January, 1999, with a view to solving the issue. The School was represented by a solicitor and the School Principal. The worker and his Union representative were also present. The Union claims that it outlined in detail the problems the worker was having with certain teachers, and that the School representative took copious notes.
The Chairman of the Board of Management subsequently contacted the Union asking it to put in writing the allegations made at the meeting of the 11th of January. The Union declined, claiming that the Board already had the information. When the School refused to attend a hearing at the Labour Relations Commission, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court on the 27th of July, 1999, in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of September, 1999, in Killarney. The School did not attend the hearing or forward a submission. It did submit copies of letters it has sent to the Union, stating that it would only deal with the issue when it got details of the complaint in writing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union has tried over a long period of time to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. It had to wait until the 12th of January, 1999, for a meeting to take place. Despite outlining in detail the worker's complaints, the Board has refused to discuss the issue further, despite assuring the Union and worker that it would revert to the
2. The worker should be allowed to carry out his duties in a fair and dignified manner, without intrusion from teachers or others at the School.
3. The worker has a receipt from the Board acknowledging the complaints. It was agreed that all appropriate work would come through the School Principal to the worker, but this has not happened.
4. The School already has all the details it needs to deal with the issue. There is no need for the Union to submit the details in writing again.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is regrettable that the employer declined to attend the hearing. No written submission was presented to the Court by the employer. Therefore, the Court is unaware of the employer's position in this dispute.
It appears to the Court that a situation has been allowed to fester for a number of years which should have been dealt with expeditiously by the employer when these concerns were made known. It appears that normal caretaker's duties are being carried out by other staff who seem unclear as to the duties of the caretaker, and this has become a demarcation dispute. The Court recommends that at this point, Management decisions need to be taken to ensure that:
- the claimant's duties and responsibilities are understood and accepted by both sides,
- the worker is given the appropriate time and resources to carry out his duties,
- difficulties arising are clearly addressed in a responsible way.
As the situation has persisted for some time, and it would appear as though there has been little or no communication within the school, the Court suggests that the parties concerned (the caretaker, his representative, and those responsible for his position as an employee of the school) should meet as a matter of urgency to discuss the above points. This exercise must be completed by 25th of November, 1999, at which point the parties should report back to the Court on the progress made.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th October, 1999.______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.