LCR22689

1. Annual Leave - Differential Between Sales Advisers and Sales Development Coordinators


BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 20 September 2022 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6 December 2022.


UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The harmonisation of annual leave has removed a differential of one days leave between grades

2. The Union are seeking to maintain this differential for its members

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The implementation of the new annual leave structure ensures fairness for all staff

2. No member of staff has been disadvantaged by the new structure

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court concerns a claim that, because steps were taken in 2020 to allocate an improved annual leave arrangement for staff in a grade lower than the claimants’ grade, a historic differential as between staff in that lower grade and staff in the claimants’ grade has been eroded.

The basis for an assertion that a differential existed as between the annual leave entitlements of staff in the claimants’ grade and staff of the lower grade is a notice seeking applicants for the claimants’ grade in the year 2000 which advised that a successful candidate would receive an additional day’s leave on appointment to the claimants’ grade. In the outturn, all successful applicants in 2000 and since have, on appointment to the claimants’ grade, received an additional day’s leave above the amount of annual leave they had enjoyed prior to appointment.

No agreement to institute an annual leave differential as between the claimants’ grade and any other grade was put before the Court.

The Court notes that the amendment to annual leave arrangements made in 2020 has resulted in a single scheme of annual leave entitlement which applies to the claimants’ grade, the lower grade and two grades of staff occupying higher grades than the claimants’ grade. The Court notes that, according to the employer, the amendments made in 2020 have resulted in an improvement in the annual leave entitlements of approximately 30% of staff and were made in the interest of equity in the employment.

Concession of the claim before the Court would result in the claimants enjoying a higher annual leave entitlement than staff of a lower grade and staff of two higher grades.

The Court notes that the amendments made to annual leave entitlements in 2020 have no possibility of reducing the annual leave entitlement enjoyed by any staff in the claimants’ grade.

Having regard to all of the circumstances of this matter the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
OC	______________________
13 December 2022	Chairman