INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
IADT DUN LAOGHAIRE
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Claim for Holy Days
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of three Central Services Managers (CSM) employed by the Institute of Art Design and Technology (IADT) Dun Laoghaire, for an additional 5 days leave per year in lieu of ‘holy days’ (Church holidays) worked. Their counterparts in other institutes receive 34 days holidays per year while the 3 individuals receive 29 days. The Union state that the term ‘holy days’ is rooted in Clause 5 of a 1998 PCW flexibility agreement for RTC’s as follows: “ Where colleges require and staff work church holidays it is agreed that an additional 5 days leave be granted this arrangement to apply to all staff existing and new”,and contend that the 3 Managers are entitled to the same pay and conditions as others in their respective posts in other Institutes. Management rejects the claim on the basis that: while some comparator staff in some other Institutes have, for historical reasons, an entitlement to leave on or in lieu of holydays, such arrangements are not universal. Red circled arrangements are in place for some staff with new staff having no entitlements to leave on or in lieu of holydays.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th December, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th February, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1.Individuals in other IT's all have the basic 29 days leave and individual entitlements to 5 days leave. A number of the CSM's in other IT's do not have a 'red circled' arrangement for the additional 5 days leave they receive and have received irrespective of when they took up their posts.The relativity of CSM's is within their counterparts within the IT section. There is no relativity between IT section and the University Section which has different structures, pay and conditions
2. Labour Court Recommendation LCR 16507 issued in May 2000 in which the Court accepted that "clause 5 of the agreement concluded between parties under PCW is unqualified in providing that all staff encompassed by its terms are to receive 5 days leave in consideration of working on church holidays". The Union's argument is that case should also apply to these 3 Managers as the Trade Union original agreement stated that it applied to all existing staff, and now makes no reference to dates or that it would only apply to staff who, at the time, were not obliged to work on church holidays.
3. The Union is requesting the Court to recommend that the 3 CSM's receive the 5 days supplementary level ( as was conceded to Clerical/Administrative Grades in 2000 and as was also applied to Technicians in 2002) with retrospection to the 14th March 2001, when the IADT was made aware of the claim for parity and equalisation.
4. 1.The current leave allocation for the claimant’s is fair and reasonable and in line with relevant comparators.The claimant’s never had an entitlement to leave on or in lieu of a holyday in IADT and therefore no compensation is due to them for the loss of a concession that they never enjoyed.
2.It has previously been accepted that variances in practice regarding the treatment of holydays apply in Institutes of Technology by both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court as per Recommendations LCR16506 and LCR 11370.
3.The Institute is satisfied that the leave arrangements applicable to the claimant’s is generous by comparison to Public Sector norms. Concession of this claim would be cost increasing and contrary to the terms of a number of National Agreements including Sustaining Progress. It would have serious knock on consequences, not only in the IADT but also across the Institutes sector and possibly wider Public Sector.
The Court is satisfied that the other grades with which comparison is drawn for the purpose of this claim received the extra leave on foot of a National Agreement which is not applicable to the claimants.
In regard to the comparison made with other Institutes of Technology, the Court is also satisfied that different arrangements apply in different Institutes. In the absence of harmonisation of leave entitlements at national level the Court does not consider that the current claim should be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th February, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.