FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Payment for work outside of normal working hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. Teagasc has introduced a new course, Opportunities Programme, which will involve a large number of tutoring hours for its Advisory and Training staff, approximately 400 frontline staff. The objective of the course is “to proactively encourage, stimulate and support farm families who are ‘under pressure’ in building the capacity of the farm household to achieve and sustain viability, thereby contributing to the sustainability of rural communities”.
- TheUnion is seeking that adequate overtime arrangements be put in place to cover the additional hours the members will have to work. It is also seeking that a rate be agreed that will equate to a higher hourly rate than the second Long Service Increment (LSI) on the Grade II rate. Teagasc considers the hours of work outside normal hours arising from the Opportunities Programme to be in line with that required by advisory and training staff in the operation of evening seminars, courses.
- The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th August, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st October, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The courses proposed by Teagasc will involve many evenings work by members who have been told by line managers that giving time in lieu will be a problem.
2. Many extra nights will be worked by members, with one member working 60 extra nights in the year.
3. Teagasc are in receipt of extra funding for the course.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is a cost-increasing claim and is in breach of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
2. The level of work outside normal hours is well within that which could reasonably be expected. Staff will be required to work approximately 6 extra nights.
3. Staff can avail of flexible working arrangements that can be designed to suit personal circumstances.
4. Concession of the claim could have knock-on effects throughout the Public Sector.
5. Funding for the programme comes from the National Development Plan (NDP).
6. The requirement for staff to attend outside normal hours is provided for in the Staff Scheme for Advisory and Training Staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conflicting views were expressed by the parties in relation to the extent of the workload arising from the new programme.
The Court notes Management's statement that the likely increase in workload for most staff is circa 6 nights but the Union quotes possible increases significantly higher for some staff.
Having considered the written and oral submissions, the Court is of the view that an increase in workload of circa 6 nights was not unreasonable given the nature of the job.
The Court recommends that the staff accept the proposals on the basis that where there is a significant increase above this figure the Union and Management meet to agree a formula to address the situation.
The Court does not recommend that the rates currently applying for work outside normal hours should be increased. However, it does recommend that the Certificate in Farming (CIF) rate of £21 awarded in 1999 should be increased by the relevant Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) increases.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th October, 2002.______________________
CH/BG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Caroline Hayes, Court Secretary.