FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES: SOUTH EAST TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (SETU) - AND - 400 ACADEMIC STAFF (REPRESENTED BY TEACHERS UNION OF IRELAND) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Academic calendar – Student Reading / Professional Development Week.
MANAGEMENT’S ARGUMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION: The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions made by both parties. This matter comes before the Court as a joint referral by the parties under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The parties have asked the Court to investigate a dispute between SETU and the Waterford Branch of the TUI in relation to the scheduling of the Student Reading / Professional Development Week within the Academic calendar. In assisting parties to reach a resolution in a trade dispute, the Labour Court operates as aCourt of last resortand works on the basis that all internal processes have been fully exhausted by the parties, and matters arising in relation to that dispute have been fully ventilated. In that context, it is a matter of considerable concern to the Court that there appears to be significant disparities between the parties about what was or was not discussed during local level engagements. The Union submits that Management has failed to provide any evidence of pedagogical reasons to support scheduling the Professional Reading Week outside the mid-term break at primary and post-primary level. Management categorically refutes that assertion and submits that clear pedagogical reasons for moving the Professional Reading Week in February 2023 were shared with the union. The Court notes that proposed Academic Calendars for the forthcoming three years has been shared with the Union, and that in two of those three years it is proposed that the Professional Development Week align with the dates of the primary/post-primary school mid-term break in February of each year. In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties return to their agreed dispute resolution procedure and engage effectively with a view to reaching agreement on the proposed academic calendar. That engagement should be underpinned by full consultation on the rationale behind the scheduling proposal so as to allow a comprehensive and sound assessment of the matter by the parties. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary. |