LCR21186

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/15/393

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR21186

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & SKILLS AND ALL EDUCATION AND TRAINING BOARDS IN THE STATE

- AND -

TEACHERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
&
ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan

SUBJECT:
1. Access to Promotional Posts and Review of HR Policies.

BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute in question centres around two issues, namely, access to Promotional Posts in Education & Training Boards and a review of three specific HR polices. The issues involve the eligibility requirements for the Adult Education Officer Grade, payment of increments for educational qualifications, the awarding of double and triple increments for outstanding performance and the employment of relatives.

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 10th of December 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of January 2016.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. The TUI state that they have never had an agreement in place to dispense with the current qualification requirements for the position of Adult Education Officer. The Union feel that by dispensing with the need for AEOs to have post-primary qualifications and experience, the role will be reduced to a clerical position. They also feel that applicants who do not possess the necessary background would have difficulty with tasks involved within the role.

2. SIPTU believe that the current policy regarding the "Employment of Relatives" should be retained as it provides clear boundaries. It also prevents any conflict of interest between employees/prospective employees.

3. SIPTU believe that the "Payment of Increments" policy should be retained as it is a contractual entitlement and they were not informed that management intended to withdraw the policy nor has any withdrawal been suggested under the agreed Industrial Relations Protocol.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The parties had previously reached an agreement which was signed off by all parties to dispense with the current qualifications requirement. The TUI had an issue with the interpretation of the agreement and the Employer indicated they would be happy to consider any agreed Staff Side position. However no agreed position was put forward. The Employer believes that the current agreement is fair as it does not exclude staff that are employed in both the administrative and training streams of the ETB.

- 2. The "Employment of Relatives" policy would have the potential to be discriminatory if they retained it.
- 3. The "Payment of Increments" policy for awarding double and triple increments was discontinued prior to the transfer of staff. The employment does not have sanction to pay for incremental credit for qualifications gained following the Government Decision in 2012 regarding extra remuneration and a clarification received from Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

RECOMMENDATION:

Access to promotion posts.

The parties are not in dispute in relation to the principle of access for all staff of ETBs to posts as Adult Education Officer. One of the parties is however in dispute with the employer as to the qualification requirements for staff wishing to access such roles. The Department of Education and Skills has revised its assessment of the qualifications required to discharge the role effectively and the TUI disagrees with the Department’s assessment in that regard.

In the circumstances the Court acknowledges that ultimately it is for the employer to determine the qualifications required to discharge the role of Adult Education Officer taking account of its statutory responsibilities in terms of delivery of education and training services. The Court recommends however that the parties engage at a technical level against the background of the principles set out in the 2014 document to agree the essential qualifications required to discharge effectively the role of Adult Education Officer. In the event of a failure to resolve the matter by agreement in a period of three months from the date of this recommendation the Employer should set out the qualification requirements to be met by applicants for the role.

Employment of relatives.

The Court understands that the basis for this dispute is the Union side concern to ensure continuing clarity as regards the procedures to be followed in relation to the employment and deployment of relatives within ETBs and the assignment of work to persons who may be related. The Court acknowledges the value of clarity as regards procedures to ensure ethical behaviour and good governance within ETBs.

The Employer has asserted that existing policies within the sector provide assurance and clarity to the organisation and its staff as regards procedural and operational propriety in the functioning of the organisation and the behaviour of staff.

The Court recommends that the employer engage with the Trade Union side to clarify the effect in operation of existing policies in terms of addressing the concerns of the Union side in relation to the employment and deployment of relatives. The Court urges the parties to ensure that all of their discussions and engagements in this matter take full cognisance of the legal protections and obligations deriving from the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015.

Incremental credit for outstanding performance.

The Court, on balance, cannot see that there has been any general application of incremental credit to staff on the basis of performance since 2009. This practice therefore has evidently not been a feature of the employment since that date.

Taking all of the circumstances of this matter into account therefore and noting that the staff concerned in this claim now form a part of a much wider organisation the Court cannot recommend the re-institution into what is a now a new organisation of a practice which has not applied to the staff concerned since 2009.

Incremental credit for educational achievement.

The Court understands that the practice of awarding incremental credit for academic achievement is not a feature of the arrangements applying in the wider SOLAS organisation. The Court is advised by the employer side that the arrangement to apply incremental credit for academic achievement is contrary to a Government decision made in 2012.

The Court notes that the cessation of the practice of applying incremental credit for academic achievement in line with the 2012 Government decision was notified to the Union side in February 2015.

The Court recommends that the practice of applying incremental credit for academic achievement should cease. Persons who commenced relevant academic programmes before February 2015 should continue to benefit under the scheme upon their achievement of the relevant qualification. The scheme should not apply to persons undertaking academic programmes after that date.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Foley
24th March 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.