FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UCD (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX, SOLICITORS) - AND - 10 MODULAR STAFF (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1. Job Description, 2. Job Title, 3. Pay, 4. Pensions, 5. Equal And Consistent Access To Opportunities.
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 3 12 December 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 31 January 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union submit there are five issues at dispute with the Employer- Job Description, Job Title, Rates of Pay, Pension and Equal Access to Opportunities.
2. The Union submit that workers in question are in a precarious and unfair position as regards these aspects of their terms and conditions of employment despite being permanent or on a contract of indefinite duration.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is of the firm position that these issues have been addressed on previous occasions before this Court.
2.The Employer statesthat there is no basis on which the Union need raise concerns in circumstances where these Workers are being treated in line with their policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The history of engagement between the parties in relation to this group of workers includes engagement at the Court in 2008, 2014 and 2015 and engagement with the assistance of the Conciliation Service of the Labour / Workplace Relations Commission throughout those years as well as engagement with the assistance of a report completed by an external expert.
Notwithstanding that range of intervention in matters related to the terms and conditions of employment of this group of workers, the parties apparently remain disagreed on the following key aspects :
•Job Description•Job Title
•Rates of pay
•Pension issues
•Fairness and transparency in access to overseas teaching.
In the course of its hearing the Court established that the parties have no shared understanding of the actual pay arrangements of the staff concerned. Similarly, the parties submitted two different versions of the external expert’s report which formed the basis for at least part of their dispute as regards pay. The parties disagreed as to whether they had ever engaged at all prior to the hearing as regards the specifics of the Union pension claim as it relates to holiday pay. There was no shared understanding of the specifics of the dispute as regards fairness and transparency in relation to overseas teaching and finally the parties had no shared understanding as regards job title usage for this group of workers in the University.
The Court finds that the absence of any shared understanding of the factual basis for the entirety of the parties’ dispute demonstrates that the parties have not succeeded in engaging effectively prior to the referral of the within matter to the Court.
The Court recommends that the parties re-engage locally to consider the factual matrix of any matter upon which they believe they are disagreed. It is only when the parties share an understanding of the operational facts as regards arrangements in relation to pay, pension and access to overseas teaching can they reach a valid conclusion that they are in disagreement in relation to any aspect of those matters. It is the Court’s view that the parties should similarly be able to come to a shared factual understanding of the requirements of the employer in relation to these workers and, having done so, to finalise a job description capturing that reality. Finally, the Court encourages the parties to address the issue of job title only after they have finalised a job description and have mutually established, in respect of these workers, the current practice as regards use of job title in the University.
Should the parties fail to find local agreement in relation to any of these matters, as distinct from the factual matrix of arrangements in respect of those matters, the parties should utilise available procedures as necessary, including conciliation at the Workplace Relations Commission and referral to the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
TH______________________
4 February 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.