FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Change to Flexitime System
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Monaghan County Council (represented by the LGMSB) and IMPACT in relation to the reduction in Flexitime accrual for staff employed by the Council. The Union's case is that management unilaterally reduced the amount of flexitime that could be worked up each year from twelve days to six days. It contends that there was no consultation or negotiation on the issue which is at variance with all agreed industrial relations procedures. Management contend that the flexi time arrangements could be altered based on the needs of providing high levels of service to the public. It contends that the review and subsequent changes to the flexitime system pre dated the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and therefore does not come under its terms for consultation and negotiation prior to implementing changes.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 1st November, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th April, 2011, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The introduction of flexitime greatly improved the level of flexibility in the workplace and an enhanced service to the public. A review of the systems in place found that flexitime was not causing operational problems and that issues arising from the schemes operation could be discussed by the Workplace Partnership Committee if necessary.
2 Management contend that the flexitime system resulted in a reduced level of service to the public. If this was the case it was appropriate to raise it with the Unions and to agree a method of effectively managing the approval of taking flexi leave. It was totally inappropriate for management to unilaterally reduce the facility to take flex leave from twelve days to six days per year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 There have been great changes in the workplace following on from the Flexitime review. The introduction of the Incentivised Early Retirement and Career Break Schemes all resulted in a huge reduction in staff numbers which has greatly impacted on the ability of the Council to meet its operational needs. In an attempt to effectively manage its resources, the Council initiated a reduction in the flexitime system which would improve its ability to carry out its functions at the required level.
2 Flexitime was introduced on the basis of assisting with lunchtime opening hours at the Council's offices. Given the subsequent loss of positions in the public service, the offices no longer remain open at lunchtime. In those circumstances it was appropriate to carry out changes to the system as it was no longer meeting the Council's needs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submission of both parties in this case.
The Court is satisfied that the Council’s decision to unilaterally alter the terms of the flexitime scheme did not comply with the terms of the agreement itself nor with the terms of the national agreement then in place.
Accordingly the Court recommends the restoration of the terms of the Flexitime agreement with full retrospection.
The Court notes that Section 5.16 of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014 provides that
“Better management and standardisation of annual and sick leave, and family friendly policies, including flexitime, will be necessary to manage continuity of service and peak demands and to effect pay bill savings.”
Both parties are committed to giving effect to the terms of that section.
Accordingly the Court further recommends that adjustments to the flexitime scheme in Monaghan County Council be addressed as part of the standardisation discussions mandated by that provision of the Public Service Agreement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
3rd May 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.