Report from the Partnership Committee following its meeting held on 2nd April 2004

Main Discussion Points

Minutes of the Last Meeting
Minutes of February and March were agreed.

Matters Arising
GH told the Committee that he contacted the Department of Social, Family and Community Affairs and they are intrigued as to why the University changed the policy with regard to the integration issue. 

Progress Report Update
The next progress report is due on 30 April 2004.  This will be a composite of what is occurring in each the sections outlined in the Action Plan.  MF has been in touch with all the relevant departments to establish progress.  MF wrote to SIPTU in February outlining areas where progress was required.  A meeting was held last week where considerable progress was reached.  MF and SIPTU still in negotiation.  MF to circulate the draft progress report to the trade unions.  Meeting to sign off on progress report scheduled for 21 April 2004

AOC said he would not sign the progress report until the Craft and Manual Workers receive the money due to them.  MF explained that they no longer needed to sign the progress reports as they are now covered by a separate agreement, with their own progress reports.  JC spoke of how there are now two separate groups within the Partnership Committee, and how they should no longer be part of the Committee if they are no longer required to sign off on Partnership Committee documentation.  MF explained that this was a decision that occurred nationally and not in UCD.  The Partnership Committee agreed that this should not have occurred and it would be unfortunate if the partnership process suffered due to this issue.

The meeting on the 21 April will be for the sole purpose of signing off on the progress report.  The Craft and Manual members of the Committee are not required to attend as they are not required to sign off on this progress report.  JC and AOC requested it to be noted they will not attend this meeting.

The disappointment of the committee in relation to this issue to be noted in the progress report.  A number of other suggestions for reporting this issue were discussed and it was concluded that making the views of the Partnership Committee known to IBEC was really the only mechanism and this had already been done

JD asked for an update on a number of issues that were almost complete.  MF replied that Margaret Ramsay had received a letter from Amicus-MSF on this matter and she was in the process of responding to it

Crèche
The Partnership Committee are aware that since the UCD Crèche is a franchise operation there is little they can do but they feel it is their responsibility to make their opinions known to the franchise holders and the people responsible for letting out the franchise.

The fact that the Crèche serves two customer groups is of concern to the Partnership Committee.  Its primary focus is on its service to students.  This results in an uneven income stream.  The students are only there for approximately 24 weeks of the year while staff will use the facilities for approximately 45-47 weeks of the year.  The income generated from staff subsidises the students.  The cost of the Crèche increased by 25-30% last year.  Staff will leave as they can get a better service for the same price somewhere else, which will result in the Crèche having less support income. The Crèche facilities are poor and the turnover of staff in the Crèche is high, as they are not paid the sector average.  The closing time of the Crèche is 17.30. This creates difficulties as lectures can go on until 18.00 or 19.00 and this closing time is also not viable for staff who are not based on the Belfield campus.

The University promotes the Crèche as a facility for staff.  It is mentioned in Family Friendly Workplace promotions, and so must be a responsibility of the University.  A workplace of this size should have better Crèche facilities.

There is a Crèche Committee but they do not seem to have a hands on approach.  The Crèche falls under the responsibility of the Vice President Mary Clayton.  However, she has no responsibility to staff.  MF gave Mary Clayton a copy of the memo that was distributed to the Committee members.

The Committee decided that a number of letters need to be sent, as follows: 1. a letter on the facilities will be drafted by JD and sent to Mary Clayton and John Coleman (the Licence holders).  2. POR to draft a letter to send to Margaret Ramsay asking what policy the University have with regards to the Crèche.  This will be sent to Pat Gibbons and the Chair of the Crèche Advisory Committee.  BMK to sent the letters once drafted.

Margaret Ramsay will be asked to attend a future meeting of the Partnership Committee in relation to this matter

Web Access
MSF requested access to the Partnership Committee website in order to provide details on the Union.  It was explained that the University does not allow a third party access to the website.  MF suggested that a link could be organised to allow staff to gain access to the MSF website.  The staff manual, under the employee relations section, will also include the website address.

BMK suggested that should be done for all trade unions affiliated to the University.

Any Other Business
Next meeting – signing of the Progress Report – 21 April 2004.

There will be a meeting in May if there is a sufficient agenda, otherwise it will be in June.