FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Lighthouse Team Leads posts
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns major restructuring by the Company. The Company and the wider Group of Unions entered into negotiations under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. A proposal was balloted upon and accepted. During the conciliation conference an issue arose regarding 4 Lighthouse Team Leads (LTL). The parties agreed that the outstanding issues relating to the 4 workers would be the subject of another conciliation conference. Following that conference, a proposal put to the workers was rejected.
The Employer said that consultants have been engaged to conduct an independent review of all jobs in the Company. LTL posts were included in that exercise and any discussion on the pay and conditions of this group should be put on hold pending the conclusion of the process.
The Union said that the Company decided to unilaterally implement changes to the management structure and workers were required to apply for positions (in some cases their own positions, and face potential competition with colleagues). This process included the new LTL grade which subsumed a number of other posts that were remunerated at varying different rates of pay. The Union is seeking to have the terms and conditions of the new post initially examined and evaluated having regard to the terms and conditions of the grades that had previously carried out the duties concerned. After that process is completed the post should then undergo the evaluation process outlined above.
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 10th October 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th December 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the new proposals time off in-lieu has replaced overtime payments for extra hours worked. The LTL group believe overtime should be paid.
- 2. The non-replacement of staff has resulted in additional maintenance and project work for LTLs. An additional LTL should be recruited immediately to cope with the workloads involved.
3. The Management and Union should agree a rate of pay for the new post and put it on a par with all others before it is processed through the company wide job evaluation exercise currently underway.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has contracted consultants to carry out an independent organisation wide job evaluation.
2. This is a comprehensive exercise that encompasses all jobs in the organisation. It would not be possible or meaningful to conduct an assessment of this group in isolation of all other posts.
3. This exercise will provide the independent examination sought of the LTL post.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court takes the view that the proposals worked between the parties and proposed by the LRC represent a reasonable basis upon which to settle the matters before the Court and recommends accordingly.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
22nd December, 2014.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.