FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - SIPTU & UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR20811.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the loss of rostered overtime in the Biomedical Facility. This dispute was the subject of a previous Labour Court Recommendation LCR20811. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred back to the Labour Court on the 14th October, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th December, 2014.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Unions attempted to engage in accordance with LCR20811.
2 The parties were unable to reach agreement.
3 The 2010 agreement should be honoured in full.
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 compensated for in accordance with the formula set out in the Public Service Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Management told the Court that it can no longer afford to meet the cost of an Agreement it entered into in 2010 with the respective Unions involved in this case. Management seeks to reduce the level of cover and the amount of work set out in the Agreement. This will have the effect of reducing the cost base of the facility by approximately €30,000 per annum. While the Union side accepts that there are financial difficulties facing the Biomedical Facility the Agreement in place cannot be altered piecemeal. It argues that it must either be honoured in full or tabled for renegotiation against an open agenda developed by both sides.
The Court finds that management has made out a fair case that the Agreement can no longer be afforded. The Union side acknowledged that fact and indicated a willingness to enter into discussions with management on an open agenda.
The Court finds that the Agreement stands as an entity that cannot be varied on a piecemeal basis. Accordingly, Management should honour the Agreement until a replacement Agreement is concluded between the parties. The Unions should commit to concluding a new Agreement within the financial constraints Management outlined to the Court i.e. to agree new efficiency measures within the Facility to reduce labour costs by approximately €30,000 per annum.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12th January, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.