FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment of a bonus for Y2K related work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is claiming a loyalty bonus on behalf of one of its members who is employed as a Systems Librarian (graded as Assistant Librarian I) in the UCD Library. An agreement was reached in the Civil Service regarding the retention of IT staff who were engaged in Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance work and the payment of a loyalty bonus to them. The Union is seeking the same terms as those agreed under General Council Report 1342 on behalf of the claimant, as UCD has a pay relationship with the Civil Service grades.
The University rejected the Union’s claim and the issue was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th of December, 2000. Agreement was not reached at conciliation and the Industrial Relations Officer proposed that the issue would be referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The University did not receive permission from the Higher Education Authority (HEA) to attend a Rights Commissioner’s hearing and the issue was then referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of June, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 27th of September, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work carried out by the claimant to prepare the Library for Y2K was essential in nature, mission critical and meets the criteria agreed for payment of the special bonus under General Council Report 1342. Other employees who undertook similar Y2K work in other areas of the University have received the payment.
2. The claimant was a skilled IT member of staff who had a significant degree of responsibility for time critical Y2K compliance as specified in Paragraph 4 of Report 1342. She also met the requirement of “appropriate record of attendance” as all leave had been cancelled for the period.
3. The claimant was involved in work in one or more of the specified areas which merited payment of the bonus. In fact her work falls under the categories (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the criteria (details to the Court). If the claimant had not effectively identified, remedied and completed on time all of the risk work for the Library, it may have been some months into the year before the students would have had Library facilities.
4. The claimant should have received the bonus as outlined in Report 1342 and there is no logical or justified reason for refusing to certify her service or for withholding the payment.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Payment of the Y2K loyalty bonus is based on the terms and conditions of General Council Report 1342. Appendix 1 of the Report refers continuously to “IT staff”. The claimant is graded as an Assistant Librarian 1 who has undertaken Y2K work.
2. The bonus does not apply to staff dealing with embedded technologies, non-IT staff providing assistance in ensuring that IT systems are compliant or staff dealing with suppliers of products or services. The bonus has only been paid to IT support grades in DIT and the seven universities.
3. The claimant’s duties and responsibilities directly relate to the categories of staff excluded from payment of the bonus. Her duties were either routine and/or continuing under the guidance of the software vendor or were carried out in collaboration with other members of staff.
4. The claimant has already received increases under the national agreements, which provided payment for “ongoing co-operation with changes in technology”. Concession of this claim may invite similar claims from others and would have implications for the nature of the bonus across the Public Service.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the positions adopted by both parties in the current dispute are based on conflicting assessments of the degree to which work performed by the claimant meets the criteria set out in General Council Report 1342.
That criteria is essentially technical in nature. Thus, in the Court's view, the questions posed by this claim could best be resolved with the assistance of an independent person with expertise in the field of information technology systems.
The Court recommends that the parties should jointly nominate a suitable person who will assess the extent to which the work performed by the claimant meets the criteria set down in the General Council Report. The assessor should report to the Court, which will then issue a final recommendation. Should the parties fail to agree on a suitable person to undertake the assessment recommended, the Court will make a nomination.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th October, 2001______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.