FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Compensation for hours worked in respect of increased working hours under the Haddington Road Agreement (HRA).
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for compensation for hours worked in respect of increased working hours under the Haddington Road Agreement (HRA).
- The Union said that its members accepted the terms of the HRA and the increase in working hours was applied to their members on 1 July 2013. It said that other Unions did not ballot their members until later that year and as a result of being early settlers to the Agreement, their members were penalised and want compensation for the 3 months in which their hours were increased.
The Employer said it sees no merit in the claim. As it implemented the provision in accordance with that set out in the Haddington Road Agreement and the express direction to the Higher Education Authority and Department of Education & Skills (DES).
- 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 the 29 March 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18 May 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The unilateral imposition of these extra hours on SIPTU members created the anomaly in Trinity College Dublin.
2. There was no consultation in line with Clause 2.5 of the Haddington Road Agreement.
3. The Union is seeking retrospective compensation of 5 days annual leave for each member.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The University implemented the additional hours’ provision as set out in sections 2.4 to 2.10 of the HRA.
2. Numerous clarifications on the quantum and timing of the additional hours were sought and received by the University, culminating in the consideration of the matter by the HRA Implementation Body, which confirmed the original DES direction.
3. If conceded, this would set a major precedent, with the inevitable subsequent risk of a myriad of knock-on claims in the sector and throughout the entire public service.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The dispute relates to the imposition on SIPTU (‘the Union’) members employed by Trinity College (‘the University’) of the requirement to work additional hours from July 2013 when the terms of the Haddington Road Agreement (‘the HRA’) came into effect. Their colleagues who are members other Unions (IFUT and UNITE) did not have the additional working hours imposed on them until those Unions ratified the Haddington Road Agreement later in 2013. The Union is seeking compensation by way of five additional days’ annual leave in respect of the extra hours worked by its members in the period July to September 2013.
The University submits that it implemented the additional hours requirement with effect from 1 July 2013 in the case of SIPTU members as it was directed to do so by the Department of Education and Science, in accordance with sections 2.4 to 2.10 of the HRA. It further submits that the HRA was implemented on later dates in respect of UNITE and IFUT grades, as also directed by the Government.
Recommendation
The Court notes that members of other unions that were late signatories of the HRA worked fewer hours than their colleagues in SIPTU for a period of some three months. However, the University acted at all times in accordance with the terms of the HRA, which had been ratified by the Union. On that basis, the Court does not recommend concession of the within claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
18 June, 2018.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.