FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Changes In work practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Mayo County Council and SIPTU in relation to changes in work practices. The issue relates to the carrying out of winter road maintenance and Management's contention that it is no longer necessary for General Service Supervisors (GSS) to oversee the Operatives carrying out the duties. Management contends that the introduction of One Person Operations and monitoring of the duties by a centralised controller means that there is no longer a requirement for the GSS to supervise the operations as overtime.
The Union contends that the GSS staff were not considered or consulted in the process of introducing One Person Operations and despite receiving text messages notifying them of the maintenance, they have not been paid for the work carried out. The Union is seeking full retrospective payment of the unpaid overtime and the reinstatement of the practice for GSS to supervise the winter road maintenance on overtime.
The matter was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 7th February 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th May 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The GSS staff were not properly consulted prior to the introduction of the One Person Operations. Despite Management's instructions on the matter, they have continued to be contacted by text and notifying them of winter road maintenance conditions outside normal working hours.
2 The GSS staff have carried out the duties on management's instructions yet remain unpaid for the work done. They should receive payment for the work carried out and should remain on duty in a supervisory capacity while the road maintenance is carried out.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The introduction of One Person Operations (OPO) has eliminated the requirement for GSS staff to oversee winter road maintenance on overtime. The work can now be arranged in advance and can be carried out by one person on site and monitored centrally.
2 The changes were discussed with all staff prior to the introduction of the OPO. Management cannot concede to the Union's claim for retrospective payment nor can it reinstate the GSS supervision on overtime. As the change is in line with the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014, Management is prepared to discuss possible compensatory payments in line with that Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between the parties concerning changes made by the Council when it introduced one-person operations for winter roads-maintenance outside of normal working hours. As part of the changes made the Council stated that they no longer needed General Services Supervisors to oversee the operations as they were being replaced by Controllers in that regard.
The Union submitted that there was no consultation between the parties on the exclusion of the General Services Supervisors from this work. It maintained that their role was essential for the health and safety of the operation. The one-person operations out-of-hours work was introduced in March 2012. The Supervisors were informed by email dated 28thFebruary 2012 that there was no requirement for them to be involved in routine winter road maintenance, however, they continued to report for work out-of-hours when they received texts relating to the winter conditions but were not paid for these periods. In response to the email the Union wrote to the Council on 26thMarch 2012 seeking a meeting to discuss the issue, however, no progress was made on the matter.
The Council submitted that the changes were introduced in line with the terms of Clause 1.4 of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. It disputed the Union’s contention that no consultation had taken place on the role of the General Services Supervisors in the new operation and stated that it was satisfied that the new methodology meets the health and safety requirements with no significant change in the mitigation of risk.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is not satisfied that sufficient engagement has taken place between the parties on the replacement of the General Service Supervisors by Controllers for the out-of-hours winter roads-maintenance. No agreement exists between the parties on this issue. Therefore the Court recommends that discussions should take place under the auspices of Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 on the matters in dispute.
If there are any outstanding matters unresolved on the completion of this process they may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th June 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.