FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Professional Development Week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking the introduction of a Professional Development Week for administrative staff on the same terms that was agreed between the Institute and the Teachers Union of Ireland for academic staff. Management rejects the claim.
Under Section 24.4 and 24.6 of Sustaining Progress the Institute introduced Semesterisation & Modularisation (M & D) resulting in an agreement with the TUI for the introduction of a Continuous Professional Development Week which states "In recognition of the need for Continuous Professional Development, a week will be set aside in the 2nd semester without lectures. It is understood that this Professional Development may be self-directed and/or course based. Courses may be offered during this week to staff. In order to promote family friendly policies, the Institute agrees as far as possible to schedule this week to coincide with the national agreed mid-term break at 1st and 2nd level".
The Unions' claim for Administrative Staff for a Professional Development Week is an attempt to achieve parity with the academic staff terms and conditions which is not tenable. The Union members would be prepared to take the Professional Development Week as separate days throughout the year in order to facilitate the smooth management of this week.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd August 2006' in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th November, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The difficulties and problems associated with the introduction of Semesterisation & Modularisation and the ongoing administration of the initiative means considerable additional work for Administrative Staff. The introduction created administrative nightmares for administrative staff in relation to a wide range of areas.
2. The Union argued that seminars training held for Lecturing Staff on the week commencing the 13th February, 2006, only 25 of a potential 600 attended seminars/training. The remaining chose to avail of time off or use the week as holidays.
3. The Employers' side originally offered three days off after the Easter break. This was rejected by the Union side as being less favourable than the offer to academic staff.
4. The Union maintains the ongoing additional work associated with Semesterisation & Modularisation is significant and that the impact on clerical administrative staff is far more onerous than that on the Lecturing staff because it is a yearly cycle of work and not once-off.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Institute is committed to the fair and equitable treatment of clerical, administrative and library staff. However, such treatment cannot be interpreted as an extension of absolute parity between clerical, administrative and library staff and academic and indeed any other staff discipline.
2. There are clear understandable and acceptable differences between the respective staff groups which Management suggests requires them rejecting the Union's claim.
3. The Institute has no difficulty in providing a Professional Development Week for these staff which coincides with the week assigned for academic staff. However, the Institute requires staff to attend to their normal duties if they do not attend training and development activities during that week or if they are engaged in such activities for only part of that week.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the Continuous Professional Development Week was introduced for Academic Staff in consideration for their cooperation with semesterisation. The Court further notes that the self-directed nature of the development envisaged in the arrangement will provide Academic Staff with flexibility in how the time is to be used.
It is noted that Management has conceded a Professional Development Week to Administrative Staff but without the element of self-direction. The Court accepts that having regard to the different roles of the respective groups the same scope for self-directed development does not exist in the case of Administrative Staff.
In these circumstances the Court considers that some additional element of consideration should be provided to Administrative Staff in recognition of their acknowledged contribution to the successful introduction of semesterisation. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Staff associated with this claim be granted 5 days' additional leave on a once-off basis to be taken in a manner to be agreed in the leave year 2007 -2008. The Court further recommends that the Employer's offer to the staff concerned in respect of professional development be accepted and that the criteria applicable be kept under review.
This Recommendation is made having regard to the particular circumstances of this case. It is not intended to have any precedent value in any other case and should not be quoted or relied upon in advancing any other claim within the education sector or otherwise.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th__November, 2006______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.