FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBILN (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - SIPTU IFUT UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Car Parking Fee.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to proposed changes to staff car parking arrangements. The matter was previously the subject of a Labour Court investigation with LCR21023 issued to the parties. The Employer is seeking to increase its annual staff car parking charges and has proposed increases in fees over a three-year period.The Unions reject the increased fee structure proposed by the Employer. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a further 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 28th June, 2018, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th September, 2018.The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The within matter has previously been the subject of a Labour Court Recommendation (LCR21023). In that Recommendation the Court set out the fees which should be charged to staff for parking and also exhorted the College to put forward for consultation a comprehensive parking management and commuting policy for the campus.
It appears to the Court that such a policy has been put forward and that there has been substantial engagement on that policy between the parties to the within dispute and more widely between the College and various stakeholders.
Notwithstanding the consultation which has taken place there does not appear to be consensus between the parties to the within dispute. It is clear to the Court from the submissions of the parties that a range of issues arise for consideration in the context of the development of an approach to parking and commuting policy generally in the College. Indeed, it appears that the range of stakeholders with an influence on this matter is large and includes for example public bodies with a wider responsibility for traffic and related matters in the vicinity of the campus generally.
The Court therefore finds that determination of the factors which impinge on an appropriate policy to address the various aspects of commuting and parking management on the campus is beyond the remit of this Court.
The Court therefore confines its consideration to the industrial relations aspects of the within dispute. Those aspects do not include consideration of the charges to be levied upon the general public for parking on the UCD Campus.
The Court therefore recommends as follows:
•That the parties should continue to engage to find as much agreement as possible on a comprehensive commuting and parking policy that optimises the extent to which that policy caters for the needs of the staff of the College in the context of meeting the needs of all relevant stakeholders.
•That the parties should agree to an adjustment to parking permit charges as follows:- 1. The ‘per semester’ charge with effect from semester two of academic year 2018 /2019 should be €37.50.
2. The ‘per semester’ charge with effect from semester two of academic year 2019 / 2020 should be €50.
- 1. The ‘per semester’ charge with effect from semester two of academic year 2018 /2019 should be €37.50.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
1st October 2018______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.