INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
TYCO ELECTRONICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Earnings related holiday pay.
2. In 1987 the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) saw the introduction of the 39 hour week. In the case of Tyco it was agreed that for operational reasons employees would continue to work a 40 - hour week but, in lieu of the extra hour per week, workers would receive an extra six days' leave per year. The Company operates a system known as Earnings Related Holiday Bonus (ERHB) whereby workers taking annual leave are paid a bonus on top of basic pay to compensate for the fact that they cannot earn overtime during leave periods. The Union's claim is that the six days' leave should also be calculated to include the bonus payment. At present it is paid at basic rate.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of October, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of May, 2006, in Limerick, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The workers had no choice but to accept the six accrued days rather than work a 39-hour week. The arrangement was imposed by the Company.
2. The term "accrued" must be held to have equal weight with "holiday" in that they both relate to time off from work. Therefore, the six days should also benefit from ERHB.
4. 1. There is no basis for the current claim. The terms of the ERHP are very generous and the Company sees no basis for including these additional days into the formula.
2. The employee handbook clearly states that only contracted allowances will be included in the calculation of the ERHP. The six days in lieu are not contracted.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and represents a breach of the Programme for Sustaining Progress.
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and considers that what is required here is an industrial relations solution to the matter.
Accordingly, the Court, while not recommending concession of the Union's claim, recommends that the perceived entitlement be bought out by the payment to each worker concerned of a sum equivalent to twice the amount claimed annually, with a minimum payment to any qualifying employee of €350.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th June, 2006.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.