FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY MAYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (GMIT) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Claimed breach of contract / loss of earnings (Invigilators).
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 7 December 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 January 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Unilateral changes were made that undermined the Invigilators' terms and conditions of employment resulting in significant ongoing losses.
2. Management is not entitled to unilaterally alter their contracts or the rules that support them.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Institute does not agree that it breached their contracts of employment.
2. Any loss of earnings that occurred is a result of choices the Invigilators have made as between such work in GMIT or similar work in NUIG.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court relates to the effect on two individuals of a change in the arrangements applying to the offering of work to Invigilators. There are no arrangements in place between the parties as regards collective bargaining in respect of the terms and conditions of employment of Invigilators. The Court understands that the arrangements for offering work to Invigilators apply to 98 staff and that the change in question was implemented by the Institute in 2014.
The Court notes that the Institute asserts that the change in question was driven by the need to ensure fairness and effectiveness in the arrangements in place for the invigilation of exams in the Institute. The Court also notes the position of the Trade Union that the change has had a negative impact on the earnings of the two Claimants.
The Court is not aware of the broader impact of the impugned change on the earnings of the remaining Invigilators and is aware that the parties dispute whether the arrangements now in place in the Institute are consistent with the arrangements applying in other Institutes.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties should accept that the arrangements put in place in 2014 should continue to apply but that compensation should be paid to the two Claimants in recognition of the loss suffered by them as a result of the implementation of the changes. The Court notes that the parties are disagreed as to the quantum of loss suffered as a result of the change implemented in 2014 and recommends that the parties should engage to find agreement on that matter. The Institute should them make a payment equivalent to 18 months of the identified loss to each Claimant in full and final settlement of the matters before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
1 February 2018______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.