Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD89621
Case Number: LCR12607
Section / Act: S67
Parties: CURRAGH TINTAWN CARPETS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
|
Subject:
Claim by the Union for the application of service days to supervisory and administrative grades.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the uniformity of holiday entitlements which
previously existed between the production workers and the staff
concerned the Court recommends that the Union's claim for three
extra service holidays be conceded.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89621 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12607
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CURRAGH TINTAWN CARPETS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the application of service days to
supervisory and administrative grades.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988/89 management and the union branch representing
production workers reached agreement on the introduction of
service days as follows: one day after ten years; two days after
twenty years; and three days after thirty years. Prior to this
the production workers had been allowed to take the same number of
days unpaid leave on the same basis of service qualifications.
All workers, i.e. production, supervisory and administrative
grades receive twenty days annual leave. The Union is claiming
that service days should also be applied to the other group of
workers in the Company - supervisory and administrative grades.
This was rejected by the Company and on 11th July, 1989 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Subsequent to this the Company applied it to two supervisors. A
conciliation conference was held on 31st August, 1989 at which no
progress was made and on 8th September, 1989 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 6th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Traditionally, concessions to any group of workers in the
Company have been applied across the board. This is also true
in industry generally as most employers recognise that in
terms of practicality and equity, all things being equal,
improvements in conditions of employment must be applied to
all. It is now acknowledged that there is little
justification for the traditional gap between staff grades and
hourly paid, and all the emphasis is and will continue to be
towards equalisation.
3. 2. Annual leave is one area where equity has generally been
achieved. Whatever discrimination remains in this area, is
usually to the advantage of staff grades. In this Company
both production and staff workers have always had the same
annual leave entitlement, i.e. twenty days. However, the
situation is now that staff have twenty days and production
workers twenty three days. In addition, under the terms of
the Programme for National Recovery, both groups of workers
receive the same monetary terms, but the hourly paid workers
will have their working week reduced by one hour while the
workers concerned here will not. The Company's position is
unsustainable and the three service days should be extended to
the supervisory and administrative grades, with effect from
the current leave year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The conditions of employment of staff workers have never
been based on those of production workers. The staff workers
have a working week of thirty seven and a half hours which was
not derived from production sources where, until recently,
hours of work were forty, and are now thirty nine. Absence
through sickness is another example of the different base of
the two groups. Pay is negotiated separately and for staff
derives its comparability from other clerical valuations in
Irish industry. An example of the distinction between the two
groups is the fact that two different Union Branch Secretaries
negotiate on behalf of the workers.
2. The service days were applied to production workers,
including supervisors, as it was considered that their
conditions of employment were the least favourable of the
total workforce. Management has rejected this present claim
because there is no relationship between the two groups and
due to the fact that the staffs' conditions of employment
packet is equal to if not better than that of production
workers. In the circumstances, the Union's claim should be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the uniformity of holiday entitlements which
previously existed between the production workers and the staff
concerned the Court recommends that the Union's claim for three
extra service holidays be conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
__26th__October,___1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman