FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Payment for involvement with summer apprenticeship courses.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Institute is a third level education institution offering a wide range of courses at apprenticeship, certificate, diploma, degree and post graduate level. The institute employs four hundred and fifty staff - including seven caretakers. Over the past few years a backlog of apprentices awaiting completion of the senior phase of their apprenticeship had accumulated in certain trades. The institute entered into negotiations with Unions, Government Departments, Institutes of Technology and FAS , with a view to running apprentice blocks during summer months. A joint agreement was entered into by Manufacturing Science and Finance Unit and Services Industrial Professional Technical Union covering technical and attendant grades. The grade of caretaker was not listed in the agreement.
- This dispute concern a claim to apply the agreement retrospectively to the caretakers employed at the Limerick Institute for their role in the operation of apprenticeship courses during the summer of 2000.
- This dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference on the 11th April, 2001, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement could be reached both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 on the 14th June 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on 18th July 2001.
- This dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference on the 11th April, 2001, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement could be reached both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 on the 14th June 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on 18th July 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of these Summer courses places an extra burden on the caretakers in terms of duties and responsibilities. 2. The caretakers are required to undertake extra security duties, although part of their regular duties
which , during the term time, would not be required during the Summer period. 3. Supervisory duties, not usually required during the Summer period, must also be continued for the duration the courses. 4. Extra deliveries of course materials have to be handled by the caretakers. 5. The caretakers must be available on an ongoing basis to assist with moving equipment as necessary and opening /closing classrooms where attendants are only rostered for one or two days a week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS: 4. 1. Rates of pay and terms of employment applicable to all staff within the Institute are determined by the Minister for Education and Science and the Institute must act in accordance with the terms of circulars and National Agreements reached by he Department of Education and Science/Department of Finance. 2. The National Agreement made with the MSF and SIPTU did not make any reference to any payment of lump sum payments to caretakers in relation to summer apprenticeship courses.
3. The institute is a service provider and does not derive any profit or additional monies from apprenticeship course. 4. If the Union's claim is conceded then it would have serious knock-on repercussive effects within the sector. 5. This claim is a cost increasing claim and is in breach of the stabilisation clause of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
Whatever the merits of the claim for summer 2000, the Court is satisfied that the claim for summer 2001 was known to the employer in good time and would appear to have some merit.
The Court is aware that discussions were taking place between the parties on the claims before the Court but were suspended pending the Court hearing.
The Court recommends that these discussions be reactivated with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement to this dispute.
If the parties fail to reach agreement, the Court will on request issue a definitive recommendation on the matters in dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th July, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.