INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Claim for 3 days additional annual leave in line with crafts colleagues.
2. The claim is on behalf of 20 general operatives (GOs) who work in the Buildings Office in Trinity College. The GOs currently have an annual leave entitlement of 20 days. They are seeking an additional 3 days' leave which was granted to their craft colleagues in accordance with the "Craft Analogue" agreement. The College contends that, while there is a link between the GOs and craft workers concerning pay matters following agreement under Clause 2(iii) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW), there is no link in regard to annual leave.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 13th of August, 2001. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of November, 2001.
3. 1 To date, the workers concerned have always had conditions, apart from pay rates, in line with their craft colleagues in the College.
2. The Union believes that the concessions (details supplied to the Court) made by the craft workers which gained them the 3 extra days' leave are already being implemented by the GOs. As such, the GOs are also entitled to the 3 days.
3. The workers concerned are party to an agreement which clearly states that they are entitled to 3 additional days' leave to be built up from 1998 and to be held on-going.
4. 1. The claim is cost-increasing and, as such, is precluded by the PPF. It has major knock-on potential.
2. College GOs had a generalised wage link with GOs in Dublin Corporation. This link affected pay only - not other conditions of employment. Following Clause 2(iii) of the PCW, the link is now with GOs in local authorities outside of Dublin but the conditions have not changed.
3. GOs and the craft workers concluded separate agreements under Clause 2(iii) of the PCW. In December, 1999, the Union accepted an offer from the College on behalf of the GOs. This agreement did not provide for additional leave. It was the subject of LCR16239, and the Union did not raise the question of additional leave at the hearing.
The Unions maintain that the Building Office General Operatives should be entitled to three additional days' annual leave on the basis that the craft workers received such leave as a result of the application of the "Craft Analogue". This agreement gives the General Operatives an agreed proportion of the increased pay negotiated on behalf of craft workers nationally.
The College accepts that, following agreement under PCW Clause 2(iii), General Operatives had a link with craft workers but that link did not extend to non-pay matters. The College also maintains that the General Operatives had conducted a separate deal under Clause 2(iii). The Court is satisfied that the agreement for craft workers, which granted 3 additional days' leave, was negotiated within a framework of productivity concessions. These concessions were clearly different to those conceded under the separate Building Office General Operative's agreement.
The College also held that this claim was debarred under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness as it is a cost-increasing claim.
The Court is satisfied that no internal relativity exists, other than on pay, between the craft workers and the Building Office General Operatives. Therefore, due to the constraints of the PPF and the non-existence of relativity on non-pay issues, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st November, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.