FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute in Regard to non-filling of vacancies.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between IMPACT, SIPTU and Limerick City Council in relation to the non filling of vacancies within the organisation. The City Council have expressed concerns regarding their financial position and have introduced measures to curb expenditure, one of which is the non-filling of vacancies. The Union accept that financial difficuties exist within the Council, but the filling of vacancies on an ad-hoc and case by case basis is unacceptable.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subjet of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.
As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 29th June 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are agreements in place concerning the appropriate manning levels in the Council. The non-filling of vacancies is unnaceptable as a responsibility exists for the Council to provide an adeqaute service to the public while also maintaining the agreed staff levels.
2. Discussions had taken place on a number of occassions with regard to resolving the dispute but the Council had failed to put forward reasonable proposals.
3. In an attempt to resolve the dispute, the Unions had identified areas and put forward proposals where staff reductions would be acceptable.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council is experiencing severe financial difficulties and cannot sustain the high level of losses being incurred. Proposals were put forward to resolve the issue but were unnacceptable to the Trade Unions.
2. The Council must provide a service in an efficient and cost effective manner and must therefore ensure that vacancies are filled only when necessary and where there are sufficient resources to do so.
3. If the Council is required to fill all vacancies, it would limit the role of management and would seriously undermine the financial stability of the Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Limerick City Council outlined the serious financial difficulties it is experiencing and its urgent need to reduce costs. The City Council put forward proposals to address these difficulties, which included the non-filling of vacancies.
The Union objected to the City Council’s proposals stating that there was no planned approach or clear proposals on how reductions in payroll costs could be achieved. However, due to these difficulties, the Union now accept that the BLG agreement of 2000, on agreed staffing levels cannot now be honoured.
The Court has considered both parties submissions carefully in relation to this dispute.
The Court accepts that Limerick City Council has experienced severe financial difficulties since 2000 and more markedly in 2001 and 2002. It is noted however that this situation has begun to improve and though this trend is welcome, some underlying problems remain to be resolved. The City Council has succeeded in making significant savings in payroll costs, however, the drift between payroll costs and non-payroll costs is still a problem, which must be addressed.
In the absence of being able to address these problems by reducing staff costs by way of a voluntary severance agreement which was deemed unacceptable to the Trade Unions, and avoiding the necessity of curtailing services, the Council has suspended the introduction of promotional posts associated with a new structure, and has selectively operated a policy of non replacement of positions, occasioned by retirements and other departures from the employment.
The Court recommends that further negotiations should now take place between the parties to ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved in relation to further savings and to ensure that savings are shared equally and the provision of services maintained.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th July 2005______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.