FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPUTER SERVICES BOARD - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Flexi-Time policy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members employed in the Local Government Computer Services Board (LGCSB) in relation to changes implemented in the flexi-time policy. Following the merger of the LGCSB with the Local Government Management Services Board (LGMSB), where no flexi-time policy previously existed, Management contends that there is a business need to alter the current flexi-time policy in operation in the LGCSB in order to introduce a revised working time policy suitable to the needs of the newly merged organisations. To achieve the efficiencies sought, Management have proposed the removal of the flexi-time system for Grade VIII employees and above, in addition to a reduction in the amount of hours that can be accrued and taken as flexi-time leave. The Union rejects Management's proposals and asserts that there is no apparent need to alter the policy that has existed in the LGCSB for many years. The Union is therefore seeking the retention of the LGCSB flexi-time policy. Agreement could not be reached between the parties and Management subsequently took the decision to implement the newly revised flexi-time policy.
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 20th May 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th August 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that there is no transparent reason for altering the existing flexi-time policy and furthermore, Management has not demonstrated any clear requirement for doing so.
2. The newly revised flexi-time policy does not achieve any cost savings or greater efficiencies for the organisation.
3. Management has acted in breach of the terms of the Public Service Agreement (PSA) by unilaterally altering the flexi-time policy.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A changing work environment and reduced staff numbers, amongst other contributing factors, has led to Management taking the decision to implement a new flexi-time policy.
2. Management asserts that the new flexi-time policy is required in order to provide a more efficient service delivery to its customers.
3.Management has implemented the revised flexi-time system in adherence with the guidelines of the PSA.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court was referred under Clause 1.24 of the Public Sector Agreement 2010 – 2014 and concerns the flexi-time system. Following the merger of the Local Government Computer Services Board (LGCSB) with the Local Government Management Services Board (LGMSB) discussions commenced with the Union on the flexi-time system which operated within the LGCSB. There was no flexi-time system in operation in LGMSB.
On the merger of both organisations Management intended to apply the facility to all staff below Grade VII and remove flexi time arrangements from staff at Grade VIII level.
Management submitted that the current system was significantly out of line with systems generally and within the wider public service. It held that the system had become inoperable; consequently it sought to change it and to eliminate Grade VIII from the arrangements. The Board’s proposals were introduced with effect from 21st February 2011.
The Union submitted that there was no valid reason to change the flexi-time system which operated within the LGCSB for many years. Furthermore, It was opposed to the removal from staff at Grade VIII from the arrangements.
The Court notes that the parties engaged in meaningful discussions on this issue which culminating in a set of proposals being put forward by the Labour Relations Commission on 25th February 2011, a few days after the new system was introduced. It is unfortunate that this process was not brought to finality. The Court is of the view that these matters are best dealt with through agreement between the parties and in the spirit of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014.
In relation to Grade VII staff and below the Court is of the view that the LRC proposals are reasonable and recommends that they should be accepted by the Union.
In relation to Grade VIII staff the Court fully accepts that it is not the norm to include staff at this level in a flexi-time system and consequently upholds Management’s decision to remove flexi-time from this grade. The Court is of the view that with a level of co-operation and goodwill on the part of those staff at Grade VIII, which is customary at this level of management, it should be possible to operate the proposals contained in the LRC document, thus ensuring adequate management cover for the standard working day while still retaining a degree of flexibility around actual start and finish times. On that basis the Court recommends that the proposals for Grade VIII should also be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th September 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.