FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Manning levels and the restructuring of water and sewerage services
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the restructuring of the provision of water services by Clare County Council.
The Union said that while it is not opposed in principle to the restructuring of water services, it strongly contends that the restructuring in its present format is not feasible due to current available manning levels.
The Employer said the restructuring was necessary to best utilise existing limited resources, to develop greater efficiencies and to meet the changing demands of the water sector.
- 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 the 26 May 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A hearing scheduled for November 2016 was postponed at the request of the parties. A rescheduled Labour Court hearing took place on the 28 March 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposed structures with the required increase in area sizes will entail additional excessive travel requirements.
2. The proposals envisage that all annual leave and sick leave will be covered within the existing staffing levels. This would mean the current staff would have to cover 1242 annual leave days in addition to their normal duties.
3. In order to meet the current requirements to provide water and waste services the Workers are obliged to work large amounts of additional hours in respect of call outs and annual leave. These hours are not paid.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Manning levels are solely the concern of Irish Water.
2. In many cases, travel to and from work from home to the new depot has resulted in a reduction in commute time for staff.
3. The working of additional hours is part of on-going discussions at National level.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that matters associated with hours worked and the use of indirect labour are the subject of engagement between the parties in other fora.
It is common case that matters associated with manning levels and funding for those manning levels are outside the direct control of the parties before the Court and are the subject of service level agreements with another party not before the Court. The net matter before the Court therefore is the dispute between the parties as to whether the proposed structure can operate on the basis of the currently authorised levels of employment of direct labour.
The Court is concerned at the degree of conflict between the parties as regards matters of fact and is further concerned at the lapse of time between the date of the Court’s hearing and the last engagement at the Workplace Relations Commission.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends that:
- The Council should engage with the Trade Union over a period of six weeks from date of acceptance of this recommendation to discuss, on an individual basis, the proposals as they are intended to apply to any individual who has concerns in that regard. In particular the Council should examine with the individual the implications for travel liability and changes in working hours liability.
At the end of that six week period the parties should agree to implement the proposed new structure. At the end of six months of operation the parties should engage to jointly review the matter taking account in particular of the travel liability on individuals and the working hours liability imposed on individuals. The Council should, as part of that process, be prepared to adapt the proposed new structure where it is shown that it has imposed very significantly increased and unreasonable travel or working hours liabilities on individual staff.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
10 April, 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.