FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Review of the Grade of Class/Laboratory Workshop Aide
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Management and the Unions in relation to the implementation of a Working Group Report on a review of Laboratory/Class Aides. Management contends that the claim is cost increasing and is therefore precluded under the terms of the Croke Park and Haddington Road Agreements. The Unions contend that implementation of the Working Group Report of 2014 will actually result in significant cost savings and should be implemented.
The dispute 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 9th April 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Labour Court hearings took place on 20th May, 2015 and 10th June, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 This matter has been ongoing for 15 years. Most recently ( May 2014) an agreed Working Group Report has outlined a method by which the dispute can be resolved which will also realise significant savings. The Union is seeking that this report, which has been accepted by management, be implemented without delay.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The report of the Working Group has been accepted but without sanction from the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the report cannot be implemented.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that it is agreed between the parties that this dispute has come before it under the terms of theClause 5.1 of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013-2016 (Haddington Road Agreement)and the Decision of the Court is binding on the parties.
The issue before the Court concerns the implementation of an agreed Joint Working Group Report “ Review of the Lab/Class Aide, Reprographics and Housekeeping Services in the Context of the Organisation of DIT and the new Grangegorman Campus” April 2014.
The Unions sought implementation of the agreed report which concluded long standing negotiations between the parties, ongoing since 2000, which involved three separate evaluation exercises and reports into the grades of Laboratory/Class Aides in the context of the changing nature of the grades.
Management stated that the claim was cost increasing and involved a claim for a pay increase and a re-grading exercise, all of which are precluded under the terms of the Croke Park and Haddington Road Agreements and accordingly it rejected the claim as it did not have the authority from the Department t of Education & Skills and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to implement the reports proposals.
There was a dispute between the parties on the cost-increasing point raised by Management. At the request of the Court, figures were furnished at a hearing on 10thJune 2015. The Court notes that the figures produced were agreed between the parties Having examined the details the Court is satisfied that the figures demonstrate that there will be considerable cost savings within a relatively short time if the Recommendations in the Report are implemented. On that basis and in the particular circumstances of the agreed new arrangements applicable to the Claimants in respect of the Grangegorman Campus, the Court recommends implementation of the Report’s Recommendations without delay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th June 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.