FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FORAS AISEANNA SAOTHAIR (FAS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pre-Retirement Leave (PRL)-LCR19938
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was before the Court in October 2010 when FAS unilaterally withdrew the Pre-Retirement Leave Scheme. At that time the Court issued Recommendation No LCR19938 in which it Recommended that FAS restore the Pre-Retirement Leave Scheme and that the parties engaged in discussions to bring the arrangements into line with those in place in employments in the wider Public Service.
Following a number of meetings the parties failed to reach agreement on either a replacement scheme or on compensation terms for its total abolition. Accordingly the parties, in accordance with their procedural agreements referred the matter to the LRC in an effort to find a resolution to the dispute.
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 back to the Labour Court on the 19th July, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A second Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd September, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union recognises that the scheme is very generous, was introduced at a time when the financial circumstances of the state were very much more healthy than they currently are and is unique in the wider Public Service with the single exception of the provisions that apply in the Defence Forces.
2. The Union is willing to negotiate a considerable moderation of the terms of the scheme or to consider a level of compensation that is fair to the staff concerned and that reflects the value of the benefit that is being surrendered.
3. The Union contends that Management has not made any reasonable offer in the discussions to date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The scheme is unique in the Public Service, is too generous in the current economic climate and must be terminated without further delay.
2. The compensation leave offered by Management in the course of the discussions to date is fair and reasonable and should be accepted by the Union.
3. The Union’s aspirations regarding compensation for the abolition of the scheme are unreasonable and totally unaffordable and cannot be considered as realistic in the current financial climate.
RECOMMENDATION:
- The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
The Court notes that both sides have asked it to deal with this matter outside of the terms of the Public Service Agreement and in accordance with the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
When making a Recommendation under this section of the Act the Court is required to comply with the provisions of Section 68(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 which states: -- 68.—(1) The Court, having investigated a trade dispute, shall make a recommendation setting forth its opinion on the merits of the dispute and the terms on which, in the public interest and with a view to promoting industrial peace, it should be settled, due regard being had to the fairness of the said terms to parties concerned, and the prospects of the said terms being acceptable to them
Accordingly the issue before the Court was reduced to the terms on which the scheme should be discontinued.
Management had made the following offer to the Union
“To compensate for the withdrawal of the Pre-Retirement Leave element of the policy FAS offer on a once off basis extra annual leave to be taken in the 2011 leave year
•For those staff with 10 to 25 years service FAS offer 2 days
•For those staff with less than 10 years service FAS offer 1 day
•Current commitments agreed prior to 2nd May 2011 will be excluded from the offer”- “Current commitments agreed with those staff retiring in the next two years will be honoured.”
The Court, pursuant to Section 68(1) of the 1946 Act, recommends that Management amend its offer as follows in full and final settlement of this matter.
For staff with 25 years service or more 5 days leave
For staff with 10 to 25 years service 3 days leave
For staff with less than 10 years service 2 days leave
This additional leave should be scheduled by management within a period of 24 months from the date of this recommendation in such moieties and in such a manner as to minimise the cost to the organisation and any adverse effect on the delivery of services to the its clients and the general public.
The scheme should be formally withdrawn and discontinued with effect from the date of this recommendation. All current commitments that have been made to date to individual staff members under the scheme should be honoured. All staff members that have applied to avail of the scheme before that date should have their applications processed in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Any member of staff that benefits under the terms of the scheme is excluded from the once off leave arrangements outlined above.
The Court so recommends. - 68.—(1) The Court, having investigated a trade dispute, shall make a recommendation setting forth its opinion on the merits of the dispute and the terms on which, in the public interest and with a view to promoting industrial peace, it should be settled, due regard being had to the fairness of the said terms to parties concerned, and the prospects of the said terms being acceptable to them
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
24th October, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.