Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD91307
Case Number: AD92127
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: ST. CATHERINES TRAINING CENTRE - and - TEACHERS UNION OF IRELAND
|
Subject:
Appeal by the Centre against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW108/89 concerning a reduction in hours worked by a teacher.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court in
dealing with the case was mindful of the lack of resources of
such projects as St. Catherines, the difficulty in obtaining the
necessary resources and the need to ensure they are effectively
used. However in dealing with the case the Court has confined
itself to the circumstances of the dispute and the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court has examined the contention that the management did
not have the opportunity to attend the Rights Commissioner's
hearing. It is the view of the Court that all parties were
given the opportunity to have their views considered and that
such views as were put forward were fully taken into account by
the Rights Commissioner and the Court.
The Court concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner
that the complainant was employed by St. Catherines Training
School.
The Court accepts that changes in the curriculum as a
consequence in teaching hours are the preogative of management.
There is however an obligation on the management board to treat
employees fairly. In this case the Court finds that the hours
of the claimant were altered unilaterally by the Management
Board, without consultation, although there had been no change
in the curriculum. This action the Court finds was unfair to
the complainant.
The Court accordingly finds there is no grounds for amending the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and accordingly upholds it
and rejects the appeal of the employer.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91307 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD12792
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: ST. CATHERINES TRAINING CENTRE
and
TEACHERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Centre against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW108/89 concerning a reduction in hours
worked by a teacher.
BACKGROUND:
2. St. Catherine's Training centre Carlow is a centre for the
education of the travelling community. In January, 1982, the
worker was appointed a part-time teacher of home economics,
working 24 hours. She was paid at the appropriate hourly rate.
The teachers wages are paid by the Carlow Vocational Education
Committee. While the curriculum, timetable, teaching hours,
etc. are determined by the Centre.
3. In September, 1982, the Centre employed another teacher and
as a consequence the worker's attendance was reduced to 20 hours
per week. The worker did not contest the reduction. In
September, 1983, her attendance was reduced from 20 to 16 hours
while the other teacher had her hours increased to 20 per week.
The worker protested the reduction in her working hours to the
Director of the Centre and the Carlow V.E.C. The V.E.C.
responded that it was not responsible for the teacher's hours of
work or timetables, claiming that these matters were for the
Centre to decide. The Centre maintained that as the V.E.C. paid
the wages of their teachers, it was the Employer. The reduced
working hours lasted from 1983 until 1988 when both teacher's
working hours were equalised at 18 per week.
4. The Union subsequently raised the issue with the Centre and
as it did not receive a favourable response, referred the
dispute to a Right's Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights' Commissioner investigated the
dispute on 5th April, 1991 and issued the following findings
dated 24th May, 1991:-
"As already stated, I consider that the Centre must be
considered the employer of the worker. On the statements
before me I must conclude that she was unfairly deprived of
4 hours without benefit of explanation or of making
representations on her own behalf or through her Union.
Such action is clearly in breach of any normally accepted
good industrial relations practice. In the circumstances
it is possible that the worker would have been reduced from
20 to 18 hours. I consider that the claim does have
merit".
He also recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the Centre offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #2000 inclusive of S.W. employee contributions
and that the Centre makes good the S.W. contributions on
its part for the period in question".
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
5. The Centre appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal in Carlow on 13th November,
1991. At the outset of the hearing, the representative for
the Centre stated that the Centre's failure to attend or be
represented at the Rights Commissioner's hearing was due to
administrative difficulties and that the Rights'
Commissioner had subsequently been informed accordingly
along with the Center's objection to the hearing".
CENTRE'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The centre was set up in 1982 and was the only one of
its kind. It had to adopt to circumstances as its
experience grew which resulted, in many adjustments,
including the rescheduling of the teachers hours, being
made.
2. The Centre is an administrative agent on behalf of the
Carlow V.E.C. who hire and pay the teachers. The Centre
is, therefore, not the employer.
3. The worker was a casual worker employed on a year to
year basis. Her teaching hours were determined at the
beginning of each year.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Centre is the employer. The V.E.C. pays the
salaries of all teachers as an administrative convenience.
Teachers are employed by local management who are their
employers.
2. The worker's teaching ability was never questioned.
Her hours were reduced arbitrarily to facilitate another
teacher and when she presented her grievance it was
ignored.
3. The Rights Commissioner has found that the worker was
unfairly deprived of teaching hours and has recommended an
award accordingly. The Court is asked to uphold the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court in
dealing with the case was mindful of the lack of resources of
such projects as St. Catherines, the difficulty in obtaining the
necessary resources and the need to ensure they are effectively
used. However in dealing with the case the Court has confined
itself to the circumstances of the dispute and the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court has examined the contention that the management did
not have the opportunity to attend the Rights Commissioner's
hearing. It is the view of the Court that all parties were
given the opportunity to have their views considered and that
such views as were put forward were fully taken into account by
the Rights Commissioner and the Court.
The Court concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner
that the complainant was employed by St. Catherines Training
School.
The Court accepts that changes in the curriculum as a
consequence in teaching hours are the preogative of management.
There is however an obligation on the management board to treat
employees fairly. In this case the Court finds that the hours
of the claimant were altered unilaterally by the Management
Board, without consultation, although there had been no change
in the curriculum. This action the Court finds was unfair to
the complainant.
The Court accordingly finds there is no grounds for amending the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and accordingly upholds it
and rejects the appeal of the employer.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
30th January, 1992. -------------------
M.D./N.Ni.M.
Deputy Chairman