FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FAS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Decision to Unilaterally Discontinue the Agreed Pre-Retirement Leave Entitlements for Members
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members in relation to the discontinuation of an agreed pre-retirement leave arrangement. The Union's position is that the arrangement was unilaterally withdrawn by the Employer without discussion and further contends that the Employer is in breach of agreed procedures in doing so. The Employer maintains that due to the significance and urgency of the matter, it had no alternative other than to withdraw the arrangement with immediate effect. The Union disputes this and is seeking reinstatement of the pre-retirement leave 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 8th July 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th October 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The manner in which the arrangement was withdrawn was in breach of long established procedures in place between the Organisation and its staff.
2. The Employer has acted in breach of the terms of the Labour Services Act, 1987 which guarantees the continuation of pre-existing terms and conditions of employment and determines that any changes made to such terms and conditions must be made with agreement between the Union and Management.
3. The Employerhas acted in breach of its own Industrial Relations procedures as the pre-retirement leave arrangement was withdrawn without prior notification or opportunity for consultation or negotiation.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the current economic climate and the requirement to comply with Public Sector norms, the Employer had no alternative but to withdraw the arrangement.
2. The leave arrangement was outside of Public Sector norms and is no longer sustainable.
3.The Employer views the Union's claim as cost-increasing and is not in a financial position to re-instate the arrangement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties.
The Court was advised by both sides that there is a longstanding agreement in place that provides for very generous pre-retirement leave as part of a more comprehensive Retirement Policy that applies to staff within FAS. In March of this year, following widespread media comment, the Board of FAS decided that these arrangements were no longer sustainable and discontinued them with immediate effect.
The Court was further advised that the Board of FAS is a signatory to a procedural agreement with SIPTU that has maintained industrial peace and promoted mutual trust and confidence between staff and management over many decades and that provides for the management of the introduction of changes to terms and conditions of employment in an orderly and systematic manner. On this occasion the Board of FAS decided not to comply with the terms of that agreement and to introduce the changes unilaterally and with immediate effect.
The Court takes the view that where agreements are in place between workers and employers they should be complied with. Accordingly the Court recommends that FAS take the necessary steps to restore the pre-retirement leave agreement with immediate effect.
The Court further recommends that discussions on the future of the pre-retirement leave policy begin immediately and be brought to a conclusion within three months. The purpose of these talks should be to bring the pre-retirement arrangements in FAS into line with arrangements in comparable agencies within the Public Sector. The talks should take place under the terms of the relevant Procedural Agreement currently in place.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th November 2010______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.