FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UCD - AND - SIPTU & UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Loss of rostered overtime in the Biomedical Facility.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the loss of rostered overtime in the Biomedical Facility. 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 25th April, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th June, 2014.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Employer and the Unions entered into an agreement in 2010.
2 The Employer is now seeking to renegotiate certain aspects of this agreement.
3 If the agreement is not honoured in full then it is null and voidin toto.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 This pattern of overtime is no longer financially sustainable.
2 The Employer has made every effort to resolve this dispute at local level.
3. Any loss should be compensation in accordance with the formula set out in the Public Service Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
In this case management, arising from pressures on budgets, seeks to alter the terms of a 2010 Agreement regarding weekend overtime work. The Unions argue that the objective conditions under which the Agreement was concluded have not changed and accordingly that there is no sustainable basis for the proposed changes.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the parties engage with a view to agreeing departmental cost reductions, including changes to the level of overtime worked at weekends if necessary, of sufficient magnitude to address the budgetary challenges as outlined to the Court.
The parties should complete their engagement before 31 August 2014 at which point all outstanding items, if any, may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
23rd July, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.