FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MEATH MONEY ADVISORY & BUDGETING SERVICE (MABS) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - THREE WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Family-friendly working arrangements for three workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS) was established in 1992 to provide a free and confidential service to people who are over-indebted and need help and advice in coping with debt problems. The Meath MABS provides this service for clients in County Meath. Meath MABS employs four people.
The Union claim is on behalf of three Workers who are seeking the introduction of restructured working hours to meet the Work-Life Balance needs of the employees. During the period 2006-2007, in order to facilitate the taking of parental leave a restructured working arrangement was put in place.
In October 2007 when the period of parental leave was coming to an end the staff approached Management with a request that the adjusted working arrangements should continue on the basis of constituting a Work-Life Balance arrangement which met some important employee needs while meeting the operational requirements of the employer. This proposal was rejected by Management.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th April, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th July, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union accepts that it is the responsibility of the Board of Management to run Meath MABS under the terms of the contract agreed with the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The Union also believes that this responsibility must be exercised reasonably and with care for the staff.
2.The Union contends that Management has not acted reasonably because they rejected the staff proposal on restructured working hours intended to meet pressing staff Work-Life Balance commitments for operational reasons that are not objective nor demonstrable.
3. The Union maintains that there is an obligation on Management to fully and deeply engage with staff with a view to maximising the flexibility of Work-Life Balance arrangements within the constraints of that employment and to investigate innovative ways in which that could be achieved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts the need to accommodate family responsibilities but that this must be balanced against the needs of the service.
2. The Company maintains that the service did not operate as well as is required to service clients during the period of parental leave of a staff member. There was virtually no waiting time for a client prior to staff going on parental leave. Currently the waiting time is 3.5 months.
3. The Company maintains that it has made every effort to resolve the dispute. It has put forward a fair proposal to balance the needs of the Workers and those of the organisation but contends that the Union has shown no flexibility in its position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the parties invite an expert consultant under the auspices of the National Framework Committee on Work-Life Balance to advise on how the Union's claim could be conceded on the bases that it would not impact negatively on the service provided and would be implemented on a cost-neutral basis.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th July 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.