FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LAOIS COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Reduction in number of Flexi-Days allowed
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Laois County Council and IMPACT in relation to a reduction in flexi leave entitlements. Management's position is that the Haddington Road Agreement provides for a reduction in flexi leave in the Local Authority Sector. Management is seeking that the maximum amount of flexi leave that can be taken be reduced to one half day per month/flexi period. Management contends that the change is necessary to effectively manage its service within the current staffing levels. The Union's position that management unilaterally made the change contrary to the terms of the Croke Park Agreement (which pre dated the Haddington Road Agreement) which provided for the standardisation of flexi time arrangements across the Public Service. The Union contends that management should consult with the Union prior to implementing changes to established practices.
The matter was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd April 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 Management should not have unilaterally reduced the amount of flexi leave that staff may take per month/ flexi period without proper consultation with the Union. Management's actions on this issue are contrary to established industrial relations practices within the sector.
MANAGEMENT''S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The Haddington Road Agreement includes provisions for the management of flexible working arrangments in the sector. Management acted within the tems of the agreement in relation to the reduction on the basis of meeting its business needs within existing staffing structures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Council’s implementation of a change to the flexitime scheme. The Union objected to the change, imposed by the Council on 14thFebruary 2011, whereby employees can no longer work up one day’s flexi-leave per month/flexi-period; this has been changed to allow up to ½ day of flexi-leave to be taken per month/flexi-period.
The Union objected to the Council’s imposed change and held that it was in breach of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (the PSA) which provided for standardisation of flexitime arrangements.
Management stated that it reviewed and revised its flexi-time arrangements as part of its Local Action Plan within the terms of the PSA in 2010 and had engaged in consultations on the matter with the Union. It disputed that it was in breach of the terms of the PSA or the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013-2016 (the Haddington Road Agreement), which provided that management had a responsibility and a right to actively manage flexible working arrangements and it providedinter aliathat the maximum amount of flexi leave allowed in any flexi period is one day.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court is of the view that employees of the Council on flexi time arrangements should be given the option to either take ½ day’s flexi-leave per month/flexi-period, or to take one full day’s flexi-leave per two months/ flexi periods.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that the matter should be the subject of a joint review to be held 12 months from the date of this Recommendation. This review should take into account the staffing structures pertaining at the time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th May 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.