FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART & DESIGN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute Re Facilitator's Proposals For An Agreement On Timetabling In The Visual Culture Department
BACKGROUND:
2. Arising from a dispute about the timetable for academic staff in the Visual Culture Department, the Labour Relations Commission nominated an agreed facilitator to secure agreement on a timetable for the academic year 2008/2009. This facilitation process produced a set of proposals which were put to the SIPTU members of the Visual Culture Department, who then requested written clarification before voting on the proposals.
This 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 27th August 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th September 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This dispute arose from NCAD's unilateral decision to change the timetable for academic staff in theVisual Culture Department.
2. The introduction of this new timetable is an attack on the academic staff's long-established terms and conditions of employment.
3.The 'red-circling' of longer-serving staff is not acceptable as this would lead to the creation of a two-tier system for academic staff .
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A comprehensive timetable was produced with the help of an agreed facilitator through an agreed process. This facilitated agreement also provided for a review of the timetable in April 2009.
2. The Union is now seeking to renegotiate this timetable and not, as it claims, have it clarified.
3.The Union is also now seeking to broaden negotiations to include non-related substantial issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that a comprehensive timetable was produced by an agreed facilitator through an agreed process. The clear object of that process was to provide for change in existing arrangements in a fair and reasonable way.
The Court has examined the proposals produced through the facilitation process. They provide a fair and balanced compromise which takes account of the interest of all parties. Moreover, they provide for a review of the timetable in April 2009. That review will provide an adequate opportunity to deal with any problems which become apparent in the interim.
The Court recommends that the facilitated proposals be implemented with effect from the commencement of the academic year commencing 29th September 2008. The parties should continue to engage with the facilitator in monitoring the implementation of the new timetable up to the proposed review. The Court further recommends that should any individual issues arise in relation to the implementation of the new timetable they should be referred to the facilitator for adjudication.
For the avoidance of doubt the Court wishes to make clear that this recommendation applies to all 10 Lecturers, eligible part-time Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers in the Visual Culture Department. Its terms are not intended to apply to any other staff in any other Department of the College.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th September, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.