FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - CPSU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Introduction of Human Resources Service Unit (HRSU) in the GPO.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the introduction of the Human Resources Service Unit (HRSU) in the GPO, Dublin. The Employer, as part of a restructuring exercise has proposed to centralise its resourcing and administrative functions into the HRSU. The Union opposes the introduction of the HRSU, arguing that it will lead to a reduction in staffing levels and suppression of posts for its members. The Union further argues that the HRSU will see the introduction of a supervisory grade that is not traditionally associated with staff represented by this Union.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 9th February, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th March, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the introduction of the HRSU will lead to suppression of posts for its members.
2. The Union objects to the introduction of grades outside of its representation into the HRSU, arguing that it will set a precedent leading to the displacement of its members.
3. The Union objects to the introduction of the Overseer grade into the HRSU and is seeking regrading of this post prior to the transfer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The HRSU will compromise of staff who are represented by different Unions. The Employer maintains that it is not feasible to distinguish between staffing grades represented by separate Unions when assessing its staffing requirements.
2. The Employer has a business need to reduce its cost base by centralising its functions. It cannot be prohibited in staffing its functions depending on the Union membership of its employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
HRSU Proposal
The Union accepts that this dispute, in part, concerns issues relating to demarcation of work. The Court has consistently held that such issues are appropriate to other machinery and are not matters upon which the Court would make a recommendation.
It is noted, however, that there are also concerns on the Union’s part that the Company’s proposal, if implemented, could adversely impact on the continuance of its agreement on flexi-time. On that point, the Company have given an unqualified assurance to the Court that it does not wish to change the current arrangements nor does it intend to seek any alteration in those arrangements now or in the foreseeable future. That assurance should be sufficient to assuage the Union’s stated concerns.
The Court recommends that the Company’s proposal be accepted on the basis of the assurances referred to above.
Overseer Post
The Court Recommends that the Company’s proposal on the overseer post be accepted subject to the evaluation taking place within four months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th March 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.