FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE CERS - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Regularisation under the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of five of its members seeking regularisation under the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement (HRA). In 2008 a grading review was carried out on the Communications Officer role of the five Claimants. Emerging from the review was a report recommending that the Claimants would be more appropriately graded in the position of General Manager. In 2009, the moratorium on recruitment and promotion was introduced and the Claimants could not be regularised into the positions as recommended in the review report. The Union is currently seeking the regularisation of the Claimants into the General Manager position. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that due to organisational restructuring undertaken since the issuing of the review report, there is no longer a requirement for the roles recommended in the 2008 report.The 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 26th November, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd February, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimants are entitled to be upgraded in accordance with the terms of the HRA.
2. The Union contends that workers in an analogous role to that of the Claimants have been regularised.
3. The Employer's refusal to regularise the Claimants contravenes the terms of three Collective Agreements.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There have been significant changes throughout the Organisation since the 2008 review was carried out.
2. It is the Employer's contention that the retrospective implementation of the 2008 report would cause difficulties within the currently restructured Organisation.
3. The Employer is not in a position to implement the 2008 report and upgrade the Claimants to the previously recommended positions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union contends that two other categories of staff, whose circumstances were identical to those of the Claimants, had their claims processed and resolved under the terms of the Regularisation of Acting Positions Agreement. The HSE has not rebutted the Union's contention in that regard.
The Court can see no reasonable basis upon which the Claimants in this case should be treated differently to others whose circumstances were identical. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
The Court further recommends that in return, the Union should agree to the structural changes proposed by the HSE. The parties should meet at the earliest opportunity so as to agree on how the Claimants can be accommodated within the new structure at their revised grading.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th February 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.