LCR22447

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

SHANNON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, SHANNON GROUP PLC

- AND -

10 ADMIN STAFF RANGING FROM CLERICAL OFFICER TO PRINCIPAL OFFICER GRADES
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Move from a 5 day to a 3 day week working pattern and corresponding reduction in pay

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 27 April 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place in a virtual Court Room on 11 August 2021.


3. UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Union stated that their members have been treated less favourably than other public servants when they were placed on a shorter working week for a period.

2. The Union also stated that their members have suffered considerable financial loss as a result.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Company state that these are extraordinary circumstances caused by the Pandemic and the immediate actions taken were to protect cash and jobs.

2. The employees are employed by a commercial State company with no financial supports from the State to pay wages.





RECOMMENDATION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The parties are not in dispute as regards any aspect of any collective agreement in being between them and are not in dispute as regards the employment status of the workers affected by this dispute.

The employer submits that it faced a critical challenge arising from the global pandemic and that it was forced to resort to measures such as lay-off of staff, wage reductions and short time working in order to protect itself. The staff involved in this dispute were placed on a three-day week between March and July or August 2020.

The trade union submits that the staff involved in this dispute, being public servants, were protected from short time working by a statement of Government in March 2020 to the effect that public servants would remain working and would be available to transfer anywhere in the public service. The trade union seeks full re-imbursement of all losses suffered by the workers arising from the fact that they were placed on short time working during the early months of the global health pandemic.

It is not for the Court to interpret the meaning in practice of a statement of Government made, according to the Trade Union, in March 2020 and in particular to take a view whether the Government statement was intended to provide a protection to this group of staff which was not available to all of their colleagues in the employment in circumstances where the employer faced critical challenges arising from circumstances outside of its control.

The Court notes that matters affecting this cohort of staff have been the subject of various engagements over the past eight years involving a number of Government Departments and oversight bodies. The Court also notes that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTAS) did write to the employer in April 2020 outlining arrangements regarding the application of a scheme for temporary assignment of public servants to this group of staff.

In those circumstances, and having regard to fact that the dispute essentially involves the implementation in practice of what is submitted to be a guarantee afforded to all public servants by Government in March 2020, the Court recommends that the DTTAS should be requested to clarify whether Government policy during the pandemic can be taken to mean that these public servants were protected from short time working notwithstanding the commercial position of the employer. When clarity is received from DTTAS on this matter the parties should engage locally to resolve the within dispute.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.