FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Proposed non-renewal of Contracts
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Teagasc, SIPTU and IMPACT in relation to the non-renewal of REPS (Rural Environment Protection Scheme) contracts. The REPS planners are involved in advisory services provided by Teagasc to the farming community.
Management's position is that the contracts of the REPS planners will not be renewed on the basis of restrictions placed on it by the recent moratorium on recruitment and promotion. The Union's position is that the REPS scheme is self-financing and the services are still required so a redundancy situation does not exist.
The Union also contends that the workers in question are entitled to permanent contracts on the basis of previous service as well as previous Labour Court Recommendations (LCR 16238 and LCR 18034).
The matter was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 8th May 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd June, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The REPS planning service is extremely important to the farming community. This is not a valid redundancy situation as the need still exists for the service to be carried out.
2 The service is self-financing and as a result is not a financial burden on the organisation. It is unacceptable that the REPS planners' contracts are not being renewed on the basis of the recrutiment and promotion ban which has been introduced in the public service.
3 The REPS planners' contracts of employment are protected on the basis of entitlements under other employment rights legislation as outlined in previous Labour Court Recommendations.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management acknowledges the importance of the role carried out by the REPS planners. Unfortunately, due to the moratorium in public sector recruitment, it is not possible for management at local level to renew the contracts in question.
2 Management made representations to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to the extension of the contracts but were informed that it was not possible and, in addition, that the work could be carried out adequately by private sectors planners.
3 It is also a possibility for the REPS planners to remain in their positions on a self-employed, sub-contracted basis. This has been suggested as a means of resolution but has been rejected by the Trade Unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions made to it by the parties.
The Court is mindful of Labour Court Recommendation No 16238, dated 21st July 1999, in which the Court first recommended the conversion of a significant number of (then) current contract posts to permanent posts and, in particular, of the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No 18034, dated 6th December 2004 in which the Court, in effect, confirmed the safeguards on terms and conditions of employment embodied in the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 ("the Act"), upon the REPS' contract staff.
The Court therefore recommends that those Claimants who would qualify for contracts of indefinite duration by virtue of their service under the Act and as envisaged under LCR 18034 should be made permanent.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd June 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.