FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ATHLONE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX, SOLICITORS) - AND - AMICUS/UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Terms of contract of indefinite duration
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the contracts offered to three Technical Officers in the Institute. The three workers were appointed on fixed-term contracts, one in 1998 and two in 1999. They continued to be employed on fixed-term contracts until June, 2001. The Union claims that they continued to be employed since then until October, 2005, on the same conditions of employment as applies to other Technicians in the Institution who are not on fixed-term contracts. The Institute describes it as "a contract extended to October, 2005, without recourse to letter of offer". In 2003 a review group involving management and unions was set up with the intention of restructuring the Technician grade in the Institutes of Technology and the DIT. An agreed report issued in October, 2005. The Union claims that all technicians were put on similar contracts except for the three workers concerned who were given contracts of indefinite duration which differed from the other contracts, particularly a clause stating that the workers' future employment was subject to "unforeseen circumstances". The Union's main worry is that in the case of redundancy the workers concerned will be treated differently. The three workers refused to sign the contracts. The Union's case also includes the fact that payments, including National Wage Agreements, have been withheld from the three workers due to their refusal to sign the contracts.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th of January, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of November, 2007, in Roscommon.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has been no request from the Council of Directors to modify the contract as agreed in October, 2005, to include a different wording in situations where fixed-term contract employees become entitled to a contract of indefinite duration. The Institute has sought to do so on a unilateral basis.
2. The last fixed-term contract the workers had was in June, 2001. They have been in continuous employment ever since.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Two of the workers' posts were covering for staff on long-term sick-leave. They received all terms and conditions of full-time employees from the appropriate dates.
2. The three workers became eligible for contracts of indefinite duration from October, 2005, to coincide with the implementation of the agreement on the introduction of new grades into the sector. They were beneficiaries from this in exactly the same way as permanent employees. Their terms and conditions of employment are the same as for permanent whole-time employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim before the Court on behalf of three Technical Officers offered Contracts of Indefinite Duration effective from October 2005, which it maintains are different from the standard permanent contracts for Technical Officers. The Union pointed out to the Court that as part of a national review of Technician Grades in Institutes of Technology, all other technicians were issued with a new contract, the terms of which were identical to that agreed as part of the recommendations of the Review Group. However, the three claimants were offered a contract with a different clause, which states:
- “A person who has a Contract of Indefinite Duration has an expectation that, subject to the normal date of retirement in the employment, she or he will be retained in the employment and will not be dismissed without there being any good reason such as misconduct or unfitness for their position, or other compelling or unavoidable circumstances.”
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court understands the necessary restrictions imposed by the Department in the construction of the contracts. However, the Court recommends that the Institute should make it clear in a statement to the three claimants that they will not be put in any different industrial relations negotiable position than other technical officers in the Institute. On acceptance of this recommendation, the monies due to the three claimants should be paid immediately.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th January, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.