FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (LOCAL AUTHORITY PROFESSIONAL OFFICERS BRANCH) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Loss of Graduate Engineers’ jobs.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute concerning the loss of Graduate Engineer jobs in Dublin City Council due to the non-renewal of the contracts of temporary employment.
The Council has traditionally employed newly graduated engineers on a temporary basis. The purpose is to give the engineers practical post-graduate experience and equip them to apply for permanent post with the Council, thereafter.
Due to the 'Moratorium' in the public sector, the Council decided, in the summer of 2009, not to extend the temporary contracts of its current crop of graduate engineers. Following strong representations from Senior Engineer colleagues, a decision was made to extend the contracts for a further six months and to review the situation then.
The Union made a case for the maintenance of the employment of the graduates and requested the Council to seek a derogation from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in order to maintain the employment of the graduate engineers.
In the context of the City Council's unprecedented financial position and national government policy the decision was taken not to renew temporary contracts.
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 9th December, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th January, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union maintains that Management's failure to provide an opportunity to engage with the Union and instead force through its decision is in breach of good industrial relations practices and procedures and an affront to the dignity of the workers concerned.
2. The Union maintains that the grade of Graduate Engineer is a permanent grade in Dublin City Council. Historically, Graduate Engineers have been employed ontemporary contracts but in practice graduates inevitably progress to permanent Assistant Engineer post and beyond.
3.By the end of this year the moratorium will have resulted in the loss of about 20% of the engineers employed by the Council. Maintaining the employment of the graduates will assist Management in meeting the very significant challenges such a large cut will have on the delivery of services to the public and in meeting its statutory obligations.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The decision not to renew temporary contracts was clearly in accordance with government instruction and the LANPAG (Local Authority National Partnership Advisory Group) agreement. It was also in accordance with the Law.
2. Apart from the Graduate Engineers, other temporary staff in Dublin City Council have also not had their contracts renewed in the last year.The non-renewal of the Graduate Engineers temporary contracts is consistent with the Council's current organisational practice in relation to temporary contracts.
3. The City Council has no intention of abolishing the grade of Graduate in the Engineering Discipline nor indeed has it any intention of abolishing the grade of Graduate in any of the other professional disciplines.
4. The City Council maintains that it has acted legally, reasonably and fairly in all aspects of its dealings with the Graduate Engineers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considerable sympathy with the case made by the Union on behalf of those associated with its claim. However, the Court must take account of the general framework agreed through LANPAG within which savings in staff costs are to be achieved in Local Authorities. Non-renewal of fixed-term contracts is expressly provided for in that agreement.
While the Court notes the careful arguments made by the Union as to why the Claimants in this case should be an exception, it cannot identify any justifiable basis upon which this category of workers should be treated differently to the generality of fixed-term employees of Local Authorities.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st January, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.