FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL / DUBLIN FIRE BRIGADE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Breach of Croke Park Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Unions' claim that, having already agreed savings of €3.5 million under the Croke Park Agreement for 2011, the Employer cannot now seek additional savings due to a budget over run of €1.7 million for 2011. This 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 31st August, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd September, 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 An agreement was reached, per the Croke Park Agreement, between the Unions and the Employer in respect of savings of €3.5 million for 2011.
2 The Employer cannot now renegotiate this agreement.
3 The Employer's actions has the potential to cause serious damage to industrial relations.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Employer has not breached the Croke Park Agreement.
2 There is nothing in the Croke Park Agreement to say that savings can only be sought on an annual basis.
3. The Employer's financial difficulties are ongoing and so too must be its efforts to make savings.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the parties concluded a collective agreement providing for the achievement of savings in employment related costs in June 2011. This Agreement was concluded in the context of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014 and was for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of that Agreement.
The Unions confirmed their acceptance of the agreement by letter to the Council dated 1st June 2011. In the final paragraph of that letter of acceptance it was confirmed that the agreement concluded negotiations under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014 for the year 2011. The Council did not demur from this assertion and the Unions were then entitled to believe that the question of employment related cost savings, under the Public Service Agreement, was finally and comprehensively agreed for the full year. In these circumstances it is clear that the City Council are precluded by the terms of the agreement, which it concluded in June 2011 from unilaterally implementing additional employment related cost savings in 2011, beyond those provided for in that Agreement.
Under the terms of the Agreement the parties are committed to commencing negotiations, in the final quarter of 2011, on cost savings to be achieved in the year 2012. The Court recommends that those negotiation should commence as soon as practicable after the date of this Recommendation. In those negotiations both parties should be free to raise any issue which they consider appropriate and relevant in the circumstances then prevailing.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th September, 2011______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.