FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK (REPRESENTED BY EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MANAGER) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Departmental Operative Role - Boole Library.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns proposals by the Employer to to downgrade five positions of Departmental Operative (D.O.) to the lower grade of Service and Security Operative (S.S.O.) at the Boole Library.
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 22 February 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 25 June 2019, the following is the Recommendation of the Court:
UNION ARGUMENTS
- The Union states its members will not accept the cynical cost saving exercise at the expense of the lower paid grades following years of pay cuts and conditions during the recession.
- The Union recognise two of the D.O. posts have been upgraded following a facilitation report issued and feel the Employer could agree that the five proposed positions be at D.O. level.
- The Employer states it will abide by the terms of the Union / Management Agreement and to engage in discussion to facilitate its implementation. However, the Union are at variance with the agreement.
- The Employer cannot agree to the Union's claim for the five additional posts which would be in contravention of the Union / Management Agreement through the Facilitator.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The genesis of the within the dispute lies in a proposal by the University to restructure staffing arrangements at the Boole Library in order to facilitate extended opening hours to meet increased student needs and to reduce historical excessive overtime.
Historically, the staffing model in the Boole Library involved five full-time Library Departmental Operatives (‘LD0s’) working on a 5/5 double-day shift basis with extended library opening hours at weekends and evenings during the pre-exam period being covered on an overtime basis. LDOs have traditionally been selected for appointment by Library Management although they form part of the General Services staffing cohort. The LDO grade – in like manner to other Departmental Operative positions – is regarded as a promotional grade for staff in General Services.
The University’s staffing proposal for the Boole Library was the subject of conciliation under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission arising from which Ms Janet Hughes, Independent Facilitator, was commissioned to prepare a report.
The proposal put forward by the University in order to achieve its stated aims is as follows: the more specialised library work is to be carried out by two LDOs and one Senior Library Operative; the remaining non-specialist work is to be performed by five colleagues from General Services at the Service and Security Operative (‘SSO’) grade.
Ms Hughes issued her report on 26 October 2017. The matter before the Court on this occasion concerns the interpretation of one element of that Report where she refers to staff from UCC General Services providing ‘opening, monitoring and closing services at the Boole Library’.
The Union submits that the Hughes’ Report does not discuss the proposed deployment of SSOs in the context of the new staffing model and could not have done so as that grade was not represented at the discussions that informed the Report. In the Union’s view, the words ‘opening, monitoring and closing’ are vague and misleading having regard to the physical size of the Boole Library building and the potential range of duties encompassed by those words. The Union is also concerned that the proposal, if implemented, will result in the loss of what were always regarded as promotional opportunities for its members.
The University submits that Hughes’ Report comprehensively prescribes the range of duties to be performed by the two LDOs and one Senior Library Operative in the new staffing arrangement. The agreement between the University and the Union arising from the Hughes’ Report, it says, was always to limit the number of LDOs to three. The University further submits that range of duties to be performed by SSOs in the Boole Library as part of the proposed staffing structure are exclusively security-type duties traditionally performed by SSOs across the campus.
Recommendation
Having had the benefit of reading Ms Hughes’ Report, the Court is of the view that it represents a clear agreement between the Union and the University that the new staff model would comprise of two elements: the first consisting of the Senior Library Operative and two LDOs only; the second consisting of ‘staff from UCC General Services to provide, opening, monitoring and closing services of the Boole Library’. It follows that it was never envisaged that the duties encompassed by the words ‘opening, monitoring and closing’ would be performed by staff at the grade of DO or LDO. That being the case, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim. The Parties should engage at a local level as part of the implementation of the new staffing structure there with a view to having the new arrangements in place no later than the start of the academic year 2019-20.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
TH______________________
22nd July 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.