FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Filling of three posts in a permanent capacity.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by SIPTU to have three workers, employed as machine and general assistants, seeking to have their members' contracts of employment converted from fixed-term contracts to contracts of indefinite duration.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12 November 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1 March 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The three workers recruited in January 2014, January 2015 and May 2015 filled vacancies following the retirement of permanent employees and therefore should be offered contracts of indefinite duration.
2.A printer guillotine operator was made permanent in March 2015. In accordance with custom and practice once any permanent appointment is made in the print works section, all colleagues would be offered permanency if they were serving under fixed-term contracts.
3. The Bank contended that a strategic review of the print works section has been ongoing since January 2014. Since then selected people have been offered contracts of indefinite duration.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Bank commenced a print works review in January 2014. The purpose of the review was to position the print for long term survival in the context of the Euro System Print Works. A new approach is required by the Bank in order for the bank to remain competitive and remaining "as is" is no longer sustainable.
2.The outcome of the review pointed to four possible options with reduced staff numbers a potential outcome of a negotiated agreement. In those circumstances it would be wholly inappropriate to offer contracts of indefinite duration to the three staff members. The Bank is not in position to agree to this while the review process is pending. The guillotine operator job was filled following a competitive interview process.
3.The three workers will be retained in employment up to January 2017 and no decision will be made on the termination of their employment without full procedures being utilised including the option to return to the Labour Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for the filling of three posts on a permanent basis. The Union submitted that the three temporary posts in question located in the manufacturing/general print area should be converted to permanent posts as it is customary in the Bank to do so where a colleague is made permanent. Furthermore, it submitted that these positions were to fill vacancies which arose due to earlier retirements.
Management told the Court that the colleague referred to was successful in his application in an open competition for a permanent specialist role advertised in the Print Group for which he had the required specialist skills. Furthermore, it submitted that the reason for the temporary nature of the contracts was to allow for a full review of the Printworks to ensure its long term survival in the context of the Euro System Print Works. In order for the Bank to be competitive, four different possible options have been put forward which involve new ways of working, more flexible roles and staff development, training and reduction in staff numbers.
The Court understands the Union's desire to maintain permanent positions. However having considered the submission made by both parties, the Court is of the view that in the context of the review which is currently being conducted where Management are indicating that reductions and savings will be necessary, placing people in permanent roles would not be appropriate.
The Court recommends that the Union should accept Management’s offer as outlined in the Bank’s letter dated 23rdOctober 2015 to extend the current temporary contracts of the Claimants to January 2017 and following that date, if the review is not complete, it has committed to fully engage with the Claimants by utilising its agreed procedures, including referral to the Court if deemed necessary. The Court upholds this position.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4 March 2016______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.