FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION ICTU GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. One day extra annual leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 provides for 20 days annual leave for workers who meet the necessary criteria. All grades in the Company other than Management have had an entitlement of 19 days plus up to 3 extra days on a service basis. The Unions' claim for one extra days leave was accepted by the Company and the basic entitlement was increased to 20 days. However, the Company proposed to amend the application of service days leave. Details of the current arrangements and the Company's proposals are as follows:
Current Arrangement Proposal of Company
5 years service - 1 additional day's leave 8 years service - 1 day
7 years service - 2 additional day's leave 10 years service - 2 days
10 years service - 3 additional day's leave 12 years service - 3 days
The Unions are seeking the retention of the 3 service days leave in their current format in addition to the 20 days annual leave entitlement. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in August, 1999 and January, 2000, but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 11th July, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd October, 2000.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS: (SIPTU)
3. 1. While the Company conceded the granting of the day's annual leave, it proposed to increase the qualification period for service days. The Union strenuously objects to the Company's worsening of the qualification entitlements for service days. Both Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus have granted the additional day's leave without any increase in the qualifying period for service days.
NBRU
4. 1. Service leave is granted by agreement in recognition of service to the Company and is totally divorced from the issue of annual leave entitlements as provided for under the Organisation of Working Time Act legislation. The Company must comply with legislation that workers are entitled to a minimum of 4 weeks annual leave.
ICTU
5. 1. The history of Service Annual Leave in C.I.E. companies dates from 1966. At that time the third week annual leave was becoming the norm throughout industry. When the claim for the third week was made, the Company short-changed the staff and introduced the present formula of 5, 7, and 10 years. In 1971 when the Unions again sought implementation of the third week annual leave the Company attempted to withdraw the service related annual leave. This was resisted by the Unions and resolved by a recommendation from the CIE Joint Industrial Council which recognised the Unions' entitlement to the increase in annual leave without diluting the existing agreement.
2. The Company also attempted to dilute the Service Annual Leave agreement during the 26th Round wage negotiations. The Court (in LCR 6967) recommended concession of one day's extra leave without alteration of the Service Leave Agreement.
3. The Unions are seeking the one day's extra annual leave from leave year 1999/2000 without alteration of the Service Annual Leave Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company's proposal was made as a reasonable mechanism to increase annual leave for all workers and to mitigate the cost over a period of time. The alternative was to increase those short of the new minimum entitlement and apply additional service days at the 7 and 10 years service i.e. accelerate the entitlement normally applicable after 5 years service.
2. Concession of the claim without mitigation would have significant cost implications for the Company and lead to similar claims from other groups i.e. salaried staff.
3. The Company does not accept that because improvements are made in the statutory entitlements to annual leave that this automatically provides a basis for additional annual leave for workers already at or above the statutory minimum entitlements.
4. Similar claims have already been the subject of Labour Court recommendations. In LCR9952, Unions sought an increase in holiday entitlements based around service criteria. The Court recommended that the minimum annual leave allowance be increased to 20 days. It did not recommend any increase to claimants who were in receipt of 20 days annual leave or more. In LCR16503, the Court..........' does not accept that improvement in the statutory entitlements to annual leave can provide a basis for a claim for additional leave for those already at or above the statutory provisions'.
5. The claim is cost-increasing and precluded under Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given serious consideration to all aspects of this claim. The Court notes that the Company has agreed to increase annual leave entitlement to 4 weeks for all employees and to retain the service related additional leave entitlement. In all the circumstances of this case the Court considers that the Company should desist from seeking to adjust the qualifying years associated with this eligibility. The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.