FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SEA FISHERIES PROTECTION AUTHORITY - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. That change arising from new a organisational structure represents more than Normal Ongoing Change as envisaged by Towards 2016
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is that the changes arising from the implementation of a new organisational structure by the Authority represents more than normal on-going change as defined under the Towards 2016 Agreement. The Union contends that significant change was made to the organisational structure of the Authority after it was formally established in January 2007. These changes are contrary to two Collective Agreements reached between the parties in December 2007. The impact of this change on employees was more than normal and ongoing. The Union objects not only to the changes but also to the fact that they were made without consultation and in breach of Towards 2016. The Authority failed to inform the Union of the reason for the changes and the implementation date was also not identified. The Authority rejects the Union's claim that they are in breach of any agreement. The Authority argued that they were obliged to put a revised structure in place to accommodate staff who were redeploying into the Authority which has been decentralised to Clonakility. The organisational structure was developed to ensure the most effective and efficient service and to facilitate the successful achievement of the legal remit given to the Authority in the Sea Fisheries Maritime and Jurisdiction Act, 2006.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 24th August, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th December, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Authority is required by Collective Agreements and by legislation to continue to apply all agreements in place unless otherwise agreed. The employer has failed to comply with this requirement. The origin of the changes made by the Authority are contained in a Consultants' Report which was not made available to the Union. A Collective Agreement of the Civil Service Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme General Council covers the disclosure of Management Survey Reports.
2 There have been substantial changes in the agreed Management structure. This affects many posts within the Authority. The post of Sea Food Control Manager should be graded at Civil Service Assistant Secretary salary level. Regional Managers should be upgraded to Principal Officer salary level. Senior Port Officers should be upgraded to Assistant Principal Officer salary level. The Sea Fishery Officers allowance of €5000 should be made permanent and pensionable.
3 All future posts in the Authority should be dealt with in accordance with National Agreements or as agreed otherwise by the parties. Certain posts in particular must be filled in future by internal competitions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Authority has been obliged to make a number of essential business decisions so as to meet its statutory obligations. At all stages the Authority has acted in accordance with the principles of "Towards 2016".
2 The organisational structures now in place at the Authority do not disadvantage any individual staff member and provide all with a good working environment and career development opportunities.
3 In developing its organisational structure, the Authority was mindful of all agreements made before the establishment date. The enactment of the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 required the Authority to develop an organisational structure which would allow it to provide a high quality of public service.
RECOMMENDATION:
This claim was brought to the Court under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 on the basis of a claim by the Union that the Company was in breach of Clause 28.13 of "Towards 2016" (Management of the introduction of Change) and also under clause 27.11 of the Agreement regarding "normal ongoing change".
Section 28.13 of the Agreement states:-
In accordance with the partnership approach , the Unions will be informed in advance of all new workplace-related initiatives, which have a significant effect on staff, the reasons for them and the proposed implementation date. Notification will be given in advance and in sufficient time to allow discussions with the Union(s) concerned to take place (due regard being given to situations of emergency). Such discussions will cover the nature of the changes involved, the reasons for them and the main impacts on staff. The discussions will be approached in a partnership manner and will be concluded in time to allow the changes to be introduced by the proposed implementation date. Subject to this, it is accepted that management have the right to implement changes in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. In any case where a dispute in relation to such changes is being processed through the relevant industrial relations machinery in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 27.9 of this Agreement, staff will co-operate with the changes while the issue is being so processed.
On the basis of the extensive submissions put forward by the parties there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that the level of discussion, inclusiveness and partnership adopted by Management in this case fell short of best practice as outlined above.
The question of normal ongoing change, however, is inextricably linked to the Union's substantive claims for regrading, and to the merits, as yet unascertained, of those claims within the new structure as set out. It is the view of the Court that an insufficient level of discussion has taken place between the parties on these claims owing to the procedural impasse reached between the parties.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties should re-engage with, if necessary, the assistance of the Conciliation Service of the LRC, and explore ways of addressing these claims and thereby resolving the issues remaining between them.
This process should commence as early as possible in 2008 and ideally be completed within two months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
2nd January 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.