FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Suppression of four General Operative Supervisory Posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. The General Services Operation division maintains, repairs and upkeeps the road network in North Tipperary. The issue in dispute involves a decision by the County Council to suppress four supervisory posts, the holders of which have being acting up since 2007, April 2008 and September 2009.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th November, 2010 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Council has not supplied the Union with any evidence that any form of systematic work study has been preformed upon which the decision to reduce by four Supervisor posts, could be legitimately based.
2. The status quo should be maintained in respect of the current levelof supervisory cover, while the full level of the Council's Action plan isput forward for discussion.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council is obliged to make the most effective and cost-efficient use of its resources and staff are obliged to cooperate with such changes in the current economic circumstances.
2. The proposals are wholly in line with the principles agreed in the Public Service Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter came before the Court pursuant to Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Accordingly both sides agreed to be bound by the Courts Recommendation.
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of both parties in this case.
On the basis of the information presented to it, the Court is satisfied that the Council is proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement. Accordingly the Court sees no merit in the Union’s claim.
The Court so Recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th November, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.