INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
CUCHULLAIN CREDIT UNION
(REPRESENTED BY ABBOT INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES)
- AND -
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Paid Maternity Leave.
2. The dispute concerns six female workers based at the Cuchullain Credit Union in Dundalk. The Union's claim for paid maternity leave in respect of these workers was rejected by the Board of the credit union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached..The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th June, 2004 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Dundalk on the 6th May, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The Union has pursued this claim for paid maternity leave since 2003. While the Union accepted the additional 2 % under the Sustaining Progress agreement in 2003 this was not agreed as a quid pro quo for not pursuing the claim for paid maternity leave. Consequently the claim for paid maternity leave is a valid one.
2. The Union has always sought to pursue the claim to its ultimate conclusion. Other credit unions in the group to which the Cuchullain Credit Union belongs (Chapter 5 ) pay paid maternity leave.
4. 1. The claimants enjoy very favourable remuneration packages. The majority of credit unions do not pay maternity leave.
2. In 2003 the parties reached an agreement, following local level negotiations, on the payment of a 2 % increase in addition to the terms of Sustaining Progress. The Union had been advised by Management prior to the acceptance of this agreement that " paid maternity leave will not form part of this agreement"
3. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
The Court notes that the parties entered into negotiations on a local agreement in conjunction with Sustaining Progress. In the course of these negotiations the claim before the Court was expressly rejected by management. The proposals of management were subsequently accepted by the union and while the Union did indicate its intention to pursue the matter, there is no evidence to indicate the agreement reached between the parties contained any provision or understanding that the union could continue to process this claim.
The Court further accepts that the claim is cost increasing and as such it is precluded by the stabilising provisions of Sustaining Progress.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend the concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th May, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.