FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THE TURF CLUB (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Unresolved issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Turf Club provides the integrity services for the racing industry in Ireland and is established under statute. The Turf Club is funded by Horse Racing Ireland and funding for its integrity service, the subject of this case, for the year 2009 was cut by €1m and further cut in 2010 by €0.5m. In 2009 a number of cuts were implemented and more were sought for 2010. The Employer is of the view that changes to employment contracts are required in order to maintain cost savings and optimal operation of the organisation into the future. The Union is of the view that the savings and changes being sought are too costly and severe for their members.
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 21st May, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th September, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are many other areas of the Turf Club in which savings could be achieved. The Union is seeking fair and proportionate cuts across the board in the budget.
2. If Management's plans are implemented, Officials will have to work as many Sundays and Saturdays evenings as required between now and the end of the year as part of their salary with no extra fees being paid. This is not acceptable to our Members.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No savings have been achieved to date during 2010. It is critical that immediate savings in payroll costs be made and backdated to 1st July 2010.
2. While the details of the Union's proposals have been examined, the orders of magnitude are simply not adequate in the current circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both parties have agreed that the financial viability of the organisation is compromised and that changes to pay and terms and conditions of employment are necessary and urgent. However, the parties have not reached agreement on the allocation of the level of cost reductions that should properly be apportioned to this category of staff.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the financial advisors to both sides should meet immediately and agree an appropriate and proportionate allocation of cost reductions to this category of staff. When this has been established the Union and Management should meet to agree a fair and equitable arrangement for distributing the agreed amount across the staff involved in this claim.
This process should be completed within a two-week period and the cost reductions required to be secured within the current financial year.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
20th September, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.