FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ENTERPRISE IRELAND - AND - UNITE AND SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. E-working implementation.
BACKGROUND:
2. This 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 27 April 2017 in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 June 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. E-working arrangements should be available to client-facing staff.
2. E-working is limited by agreement to staff and roles where it is practicable.
3. To date no reasonable case has been made to demonstrate that e-working is not practicable for client facing staff.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management has continued to offer e-working to administrative office-based roles for an agreed period of one year at a time.
2. Management has consistently increased the numbers and spread of colleagues availing of e-working.
3. Management remains of the view that client-facing roles are not suitable for structured e-working arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The Unions’ claim, as presented to the Court, is for an extension of the e-Working Programme operated by the Respondent. That Programme is currently confined to the Respondent’s non client-facing staff in its Dublin and regional offices (of which there are 13 in Ireland). All applications from eligible individual staff members to date have been accepted. Approval is given for 12 months at a time but is rolled over on a yearly basis if the staff member concerned wishes to continue with the arrangement. No staff member availing of the Programme, at present, has requested to e-work for more than one day per week.
The Programme is not open to client-facing staff as per the following provision at paragraph 2.6 of the Respondent’s e-Working Pilot Programme:
- “The suitability for e-working depends on job content. Work that requires thinking and writing, research, data analysis or computer programming may be suitable for e-working. On the other hand, e-working may not be suitable if the employee needs to have extensive face-to-face contact with other employees, clients or the general public or if the employee needs frequent access to material that cannot be removed from an Enterprise Ireland Office.”
•Provision to make e-working available to client-facing staff;•An increase in the current limited availability of e-working which stands at less than 1% of working time into a recognisable feature of a work/life balance initiative in Enterprise Ireland;
•Provision of the option to e-work for two to three days per week;
•Non-removal of e-working from employees after 12 months.
The Respondent submits:
•There are currently 19 non client-facing staff availing of the option to e-work, one day per week; the majority of these are based in Head Office in Dublin;•All applications to date from staff to be permitted to e-work have been accepted and granted;
•There is no demand currently from those availing of the Programme to e-work more than one day per week but if any staff members were to apply to e-work more than one day per week any such applications would be given due consideration;
•Although the Programme provides that permission to e-work is given for 12 months at a time, such permission is not automatically revoked at the end of that period; it is routinely rolled over for a further 12-month period where the staff member concerned wishes to continue with the arrangement;
•Those working in client-facing roles are not suitable candidates for e-working because they already spend considerable periods of time away from the office by virtue of the nature of their work and they are permitted to avail of a range of other flexible arrangements by agreement with their individual line manager;
•It is not been brought to Management’s attention that client-facing staff have experienced any difficulties availing of locally agreed flexibilities.
Recommendation
The Court notes that the terms of the Pilot e-Working Programme explicitly provide at paragraph 2.6 that there are certain grades whose work content is not suitable for e-working. The Court accepts that Management must be able to regulate access to the Programme and to determine which grades can and cannot access it.
However, having heard and considered the Parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court is of the view that the issue of access to the e-Working Programme is not at the core of the within dispute and, therefore, recommends that the Parties engage further to better clarify the underlying concerns that prompted the within referral to the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
13 July 2017.______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.