FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : FAS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Union/Management Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU that FÁS has failed to honour a Company/Union agreement made in 1997 in relation to a Managerial position at the Jervis Street Training Centre.
Up until 2005 this centre was managed by a Grade 6 Manager. When he retired he was not replaced. FÁS, having conducted an examination of activity levels in City Centre and Cabra Training Services Units, concluded that there was no need for a Grade 6 Manager in both locations. One Grade 6 Manager, based in Cabra, was appointed with responsibility for both Centres. This decision was conveyed to the Union's Chief Shop Steward at a meeting on August 31st, 2005. The Union was also advised by FÁS Management that the Grade 7 Assistant Manager had in fact been ''acting-up'' as the Manager in Jervis Street during the period in question. He had not been in receipt of an ''acting-up'' allowance.
The Union claim that Management broke the Company/Union Agreement by implementing the change without recourse to the staff.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 17th May, 2006. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th May, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th September, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. By not maintaining a Grade 6 Manager's post in Jervis Street Training Centre FÁS has broken our agreements and their own policies by failing to follow the agreed Consultation Procedure in Section 1(b) of the Industrial Relations Procedures Agreement.
2. The Union maintains that Management has also breached Section 3.4 of the 1997 FÁS/SIPTU Programme of Change Agreement which states that ''The Training Services Unit will be headed -up by a Grade 6 Manager.'' There is no Grade 6 Manager in place.
3. FÁS Policy 04-05-01 on "Performance of the Duties at a Higher Grade-Payment of Allowances" clearly states that the payment of the higher rate (in this case Grade 6) should apply after 4 weeks. It was never applied despite the fact that the Grade 7 was performing at Grade 6 for approximately 12 months.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. FÁS Management has consulted with staff and the Union as per agreement and continue to do so.
Following a Consultation Meeting on the 31st August, 2005, the Director of Training Servicesmet with staff in the City Centre and in Cabra and explained that the Manager in Cabra would assume overall responsibility for the City Centre Training Services Unit.
2. The City Centre Training Services Unit is headed up by a Grade 6 Manager who is also responsible for the Cabra Training Services Unit. The 1997 Agreement does not say that a Manager cannot also manage a smaller adjacent satellite centre.
3. Management is not in breach of FÁS policy 04-05-01. Nobody was requested to carry out higher duties or to take on an acting higher grade as this was not required. No claim was made by any individual or by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim that FÁS did not follow procedures concerning a new management structure at its Jervis Street Training Centre. In doing so the Union contends that FÁS failed to honour a number of Company/Union agreements.
Of particular concern to the Union was the alleged breach of its Consultation Procedures under the Industrial Relations Procedures Agreement when management announced its decisions.
In response, Management stated that it informed staff of changes at management level within the Jervis Street Training Centre at a Consultation Meeting, convened by the Director HRD and Staff Relations, with Union Officials, on 31st August 2005 and was followed up at a Staff Relations meeting on 11th November 2005.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, and having examined the Consultation Procedures referred to, the Court is not satisfied that the Procedures were followed in this case. The Court is of the view that the meeting on 11th November 2005 does not comply with the requirements for "sufficient time" "to study and consult" and "to negotiate with FÁS" as per the Procedures.
The Court notes that the Union is prepared to accept that there may not be a necessity for a permanent appointment at Manager level at the Jervis Street Training Centre. However, there is no agreement on the Centre being designated as a "Satellite" training centre.
Consequently, the Court recommends that in accordance with the Consultation Procedures, both parties should engage in discussions on the practicalities of the operation of the Jervis Street Training Centre going forward. These discussions should be conducted as a matter of urgency and should be completed by no later than the end of October 2006.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th October, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.