FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN BORD ALTRANAIS (REPRESENTED BY HSE) - AND - INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compressed Hours Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for the restoration of a compressed hours arrangement for Education Officers employed by An Bord. In August 2007, An Bord moved premises from Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2 to Blackrock, Co. Dublin. Following negotiations between the parties, the Compressed Hours Work Scheme was introduced as part of an agreement to relocate. In November, 2009 the Employer withdrew the Scheme. The Employer's position is that there were ongoing difficulties at management level with the Scheme which was impacting on the workload. The Scheme was agreed to on the basis that the service provided would not be adversely affected. The Union contends that the withdrawal of the Scheme is not in keeping with the agreement to facilitate the relocation. The Scheme was accepted as a permanent arrangement.
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 7th September, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th December, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 All other staff avail of flexitime. Education Officers are excluded from this scheme. If the workers concerned were aware that the Compressed Hours Scheme was to be withdrawn they would have negotiated a flexitime scheme at the time of the relocation.
2 The Scheme was put forward by the Employer as both forward looking and compatible with work/life balance. The discontinuation of the Scheme is not family friendly and removes any form of positive work/life balance
3 The agreement was accepted by the workers concerned and therefore it became a term of their contract of employment. A review clause is built in for individual worker's but not for discontinuing the entire Scheme. There were no objective grounds given for discontinuing the Scheme nor were the workers made aware of any problems.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The administration of the Scheme has put a burden on the Employer's systems in areas such as the arrangement of diaries, organisation of meetings and places an unseen stress on management and allocation of workload.
2 The Scheme adds an extra 40 days per worker to non-rosterd days of annual leave and Bank Holidays, when a senior officer is unavailable to the Employer during normal working hours.
3 The Employer agreed to the Scheme on the basis that the services provided by An Bord will not be adversely affected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
The Compressed working week was introduced as part of a collective agreement that facilitated the relocation of the head office of An Bord from the city centre to Blackrock. After the introduction of the Scheme management formed the view that it was adversely affecting the organisation's capacity to function properly and discharge its statutory duties and mandate. As a consequence management decided to terminate the Scheme with effect from 31 December, 2009.
The Court is satisfied that the compressed hours agreement was intended to meet the requirements of both the organisation and the staff. It became clear in the course of 2009 that the organisation's needs were not being met. The collective agreement provides for the termination of any individual's participation in the Scheme by notice by either party. Accordingly the Court cannot support management's decision to unilaterally terminate the scheme in its entirety.
On the other hand the Court has consistently held that collective agreements are not immutable and can be amended to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the parties. In this case the Court is satisfied that management has established that the current agreement is adversely affecting the operation of An Bord and needs to be either modified or discontinued. It is a matter for the parties to engage with each other to address the details of issues that arise for An Bord and the staff and to try to reach an agreement that effectively addresses them.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties meet to determine what changes to the agreement are necessary to address these issues. This process should be completed within six weeks and any outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court for a final recommendation
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th December, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.