FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - AMICUS - MSF DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Promotional posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns research staff employed in Teagasc. The approximate ratio of staff sought by the Company in the two higher grades SPRO (Senior Principal Research Officer) and PRO (Principal Research Officer) and those in the two lower grades SRO (Senior Research Officer) and RO (Research Officer) is 40:60.
The Union is seeking that the proportion of staff with two higher grades and the two lower grades be on a 50:50 basis.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th July, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th October, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Research group was least affected as Teagasc had managed to adhere to the approved Staff Establishment (i.e. 40:60 ratio), rather than implementing the 1 in 3 replacement policy that had applied to other staff categories.
2. The commitment to examine thepossibilityof a 50:50 ratio was given by the previous director of Teagasc Following consultation with the Department of Agriculture it was decided that the original structure of a 40:60 ratio would apply.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At a meeting between the Union and the director of Teagasc in 2001, agreement was reached that a ratio of 50:50 would be applied in return for the settlement of an industrial relations dispute.
2. If an agreement is reached between management and Unions pertaining to the terms and conditions of employment, it is expected that the agreement will be implemented. It is unacceptable to make an agreement and refuse to implement it on the basis that sanction of the agreed ratiowas refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Union were given a commitment that the ratio of career to promotional posts would be 50:50. This commitment was accepted by the Union as part of the settlement of an industrial relations dispute and it would be unreasonable and contrary to good practice not to fulfil that commitment.
The Court accepts that senior management gave the commitment in good faith and sought, unsuccessfully, to obtain sanction for the agreed ratio. However, in all the circumstances the Court is of the view that the Union's claim should be conceded and the Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th November, 2004______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.