FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Employment and release of temporary employees on a seniority basis.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1998, the Council interviewed a number of workers and employed 7 of them on a temporary basis. The work involved 2 projects - litter collection from May to August, and general operations from August to December. In 1999, following interviews, the Council recalled some, but not all of the workers from 1998, and not in order of seniority. The Council also employed some new temporary staff in 1999. The Union's claim is that the workers from 1998 should be employed in each successive year on a seniority basis, once they have proved satisfactory. The Union also wants the workers released on a seniority basis, something it claims did not happen in 1999. The third issue is that the workers should have the right to progress to permanent positions should they arise. The Union is basing its position on (a) Code of Practice, (b) custom and practice in the Council and (c) equity and objectivity. The Council's position is that it should have the right to employ the most suitable people for the job.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 20th of January, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th of March, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of September, 2000 in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Code of Practice was adopted by the Council in March, 1986. Clause 1.2 of the Code outlines the objectives as security of employment of employees in local authorities. Clause 1.3 states that there should be no artificial barriers to the achievement of permanent status. The Council's suggestion that it will interview and create new panels on a regular basis is contrary to the Code of Practice.
2. Accepted custom and practice in the Council is that temporary/non-permanent employees are permitted to progress to permanent status. In the event of work not being available, they are released on a seniority basis and recalled accordingly.
3. The workers concerned have already been interviewed 3 times. They have all proved satisfactory in their work, yet the Council intends interviewing them on a yearly basis. The workers from 1998 should have first right of refusal in the interests of equity and objectivity.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to 1998, the need for temporary panels for the work in question did not arise. Two separate temporary panels were formed in 1998, but it was not intended that these panels would carry forward into future years. To do so could exclude a large number of individuals who may wish to work with the Council.
2. The Council is committed to giving the best possible service to its customers. Selection for employment must, therefore, be on the basis of suitability. Factors such as previous work experience will be taken into account. The practice of forming new panels does not prevent individuals who were previously employed by the Council from re-applying for temporary work.
RECOMMENDATION:
Notwithstanding their use of the Conciliation process, the Court is not satisfied that the parties have engaged on the matter in dispute in the context of the Code of Practice on Security of Employment for Employee Grades in Local Authorities, which was agreed in 1986, and to which the County Council stated to the Court they intended to adhere. Furthermore, the Court is not satisfied that the employment practice, which forms the subject matter of this dispute, complies with the agreed code of practice.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties enter into further discussions with a view to putting in place employment practices for temporary and seasonal staff, which adhere to the Code of Practice in respect of 2001 and following years. These discussions should be completed by the end of December 2000.
In these discussions, the employment periods of the individuals who are the subject of this claim should be taken into account.
If agreement is not reached by the date specified above, either party may ask the Court to issue a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th October, 2000______________________
CON/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.