FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BLUEBEAM LIMITED T/A EMERALD CULTURAL INSTITUTE (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Terms and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Emerald Cultural Institute is an English Language School focusing on the training of non-English speaking students and is recognised by the Department of Education & Science. Teachers became aware that a number of different sets of terms and conditions of employment were being applied to individual teachers due mainly to historical reasons and they sought to harmonise these with the co-operation of the Management. Difficulties arose regarding the best method to be used in the negotiations and a dispute ensued.
The 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 14th April, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th June, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The income that the Institute earns from an average teaching hour is completely disproportionate to the hourly rate that a teacher receives. This is unjust and essentially amounts to exploitation of the teachers.
2. The Union is seeking full-time contracts of employment on improved terms and conditions no less favourable than comparable teachers with similar qualifications and experience in the Secondary School Sector.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The normal procedural methods of grievance resolution were never adhered to thus making it almost impossible to find a basis upon which to build a framework for negotiations that would be agreeable to both parties.
2. It is the Company's position that the current terms and condition enjoyed by the teachers should at first be set down in writing and agreed by both parties and only then would it be appropriate to begin discussions and process in an orderly and constructive fashion on possible improvements in the terms and conditions of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for improvements in terms and conditions of employment for its teaching members at the Institute.
The Court notes that an understanding was reached in May 2008 between the Union and the Institute on the procedures to apply following SIPTU’s organisation of teaching staff into the union. That understanding included finalisation of a Procedural Agreement (signed between the parties on 28th November 2008), completion of statements to staff on the current terms and conditions of employment (issued in January 2008) and entry into local negotiations on the improvements sought (Union submitted claim in December 2008).
Efforts to proceed with the process were frustrated when Union members did not accept the statements issued on current terms and conditions of employment. The claim for improvements in terms and conditions of employment was then referred to the Labour Relations Commission and subsequently jointly referred to the Court.
Having considered the position of both sides, the Court is of the view that the claim before the Court is premature. While the Court recognises the aspiration of the Union’s members to improve their terms and conditions of employment, it is of the view that the Institute’s suggested process outlined in May 2008 is the appropriate way to proceed in this case. Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties should engage in a process of discussions/negotiations in accordance with the Institute’s proposed structured process.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd July, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.