FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY TRAINING ORGANISATIONS LIMITED (IACTO) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Breach of an Agreement concluded in 1999.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns an Agreement concluded between the Employer and the Union in 1999. The Employer claims it does not have the necessary funding to meet the commitments made in the 1999 Agreement. The Union is requesting the Court to uphold the 1999 Agreement. 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 29th May 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th July 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1999 Agreement set out a pathway for dealing with issues within the Community Training Centres (CTC’s) and was then freely entered into by a number of parties, i.e. SIPTU, FAS, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
2. IACTO was established as the negotiating body representing the combined CTC structure across the Country.
3. The Union is seeking to have the terms of the Agreement complied with generally and to have the agreed redundancy terms in particular applied in this case..
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. IACTO is the recognised Employers body for collective third party engagement in the management of 38 CTC’s employing approximately 500 workers.
2. FAS allocated funding to CTC's through regional training centres. Since the dissolution of FAS, SOLAS (under the auspices of the Department of Education & Skills) has responsibility for funding CTC's and this funding is being redirected to Education Training Boards (the former VECs).
3. IACTO is not in a position to meet with the Union’s claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes that the parties concluded an Agreement in 1999 that contains both procedural arrangements for the orderly conduct of industrial relations and substantive provisions for the payment of an agreed ex-gratia amount where redundancies arise in the sector.
The Court notes that the 1999 Agreement has not been altered or amended in any way and remains in force between the parties. Accordingly, the Court takes the view that it should be honoured and complied with by all parties to the Agreement.
The Court, in that context, recommends that the redundancy terms set out in the 1999 Agreement be applied to all redundancies that arise within the sector including those specifically outlined to the Court. The Court further recommends that both parties to this dispute should jointly and severally approach the relevant State Agencies with a view to securing the funds necessary to meet the commitments set out in the Agreement to which they are party.
The Court further notes that the State Agencies that are now responsible for the funding of this sector have subsumed the Agencies that were parties to this Agreement. Accordingly, the Court recommends that all interested parties should meet to agree changes to the 1999 Agreement to enable it to more accurately reflect the current funding arrangements and structure of the sector.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
16th July, 2014.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.