FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & SKILLS - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Number of hours in a working week for Special Needs Assistant (Job Sharing)
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the number of working hours for Job Sharing Special Needs Assistants (SNAs) in primary and secondary schools. 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 13th January, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th February, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 SNAs have always had access to the same job share scheme which was and still is available to teachers.
2 SNAs are the only group of Public Service workers who do not enjoy the full protections of the Haddington Road Agreement.
3 The Employer is seeking to change the nationally agreed hours for SNAs.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 An agreement between both sides has been in existence since 2004.
2 SNAs are paid in accordance with this agreement.
3 There is no reason why the pay rate should now be calculated in a different manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
The starting point for the Court’s consideration of this case is that any arrangement put in place must conform to the requirements of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. Given that there appears to be variations in attendance hours of full-time SNAs between schools and between types of schools, a uniform attendance requirement for part-time job-sharers might not fully comport with that legislation. In that regard it seems clear to the Court that any arrangement which could require a job-sharer to work more than 50% of the hours actually worked by a comparable full-time SNA, for 50% of the full-time rate, would not comply with the Act of 2001.
The Court accepts that there is cogency in the agreement advanced by the Department to the effect that agreement on a fixed number of hours for job-sharers is a prerequisite to the effective administration of a scheme of the type envisaged. In that regard the Court is concerned that a recommendation in line with that sought by the Unions might result in the scheme envisaged being impracticable from an administrative perspective. In that regard the absence of any agreed understanding on what constitutes the normal working hours of a full-time SNA is a major impediment to resolving the issue now before the Court.
The Court is not satisfied that the difficulties articulated by both sides in the course of the hearing have been fully or adequately explored in conciliation. For that reason the Court believes that before those issues can be addressed in any recommendation that the Court may make, they should be explored more fully by the parties in conciliation.
The focus of further engagement between the parties should be directed at identifying how a system which is fully compliant with the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 could operate within the centralised administrative arrangements of the Department.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties return to conciliation for the purpose set out above. If the matter cannot be resolved within a period of not more than three months from the resumption of conciliation it may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th March, 2014______________________
CO'RChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.