FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE IFUT DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Academic year variation
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute between the parties arises from a claim by the Union for compensatory leave in respect of the impact on their members of the introduction of a new academic year structure. The dispute could not be resolved at local level. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 21 September 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 November, 2018.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions say that there was very limited consultation consisting of one local meeting, instigated by SIPTU.
2. They say that the significant change had and will have several adverse effects on staff.
3. The Unions say that there was significant additional work undertaken by its' members in the Academic year 2017/2018.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There were a number of meetings between the University and staff representatives according to the Employer and staff were kept appraised of the implementation progress through all-staff emails of 2 Feb and 22 March and the regular updating of the FAQ section on the Trinity Education Project website.
2. The Employer says that this is a cost-increasing claim and that it would have knock-on cost-increasing implications in the university, the higher education sector and the broader public sector.
3. The Employer says that the changes to the academic year calendar brings Trinity in line with all the other Irish universities.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties is a claim by the Unions for compensatory leave in respect of the impact on their members of the introduction of a new academic year structure. The Unions are seeking five additional days on a one-off basis.
It is the Unions contention that the implementation of the new structure impacted on the ability of the workers to take annual leave in the year of change 2018/2019 in that they had a shorter window available to take leave. They also pointed to additional workload issues that stemmed from the introduction and bedding down of the new structure.
The Employer did not dispute that there was full co-operation with the implementation of the new structure and that there were some teething problems to be resolved. The Employer was disposed to give an additional closure day at Christmas 2018 and an additional closure day at Christmas 2019.
The Unions difficulty with this proposal is that workers who were involved in the change process but retire in either September 2018 or September 2019 will not benefit from the arrangement.
The Court having carefully considered the written submissions and oral submissions of both parties recommends that 2 days leave on a once-off basis be granted to all workers covered by the Unions’ claim in full and final settlement of this dispute. Discussion on implementation to take place at a local level taking into account the varying needs of the various departments.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CC______________________
5 December, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.