FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST. CRONAN'S ASSOCIATION, ROSCREA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Failure to grant extra annual leave based on length of service/commitment to the Association.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for additional annual leave for 22 of its members, 17 of whom are Instructors and 5 clerical/administrative staff. The Association provides services to people with intellectual disabilities. The current annual leave is 21 days and the Union is seeking the following:
0-5 years' service 3 additional days' leave
5-10 years' service 4 additional days' leave
10 years' + service 7 additional days' leave
The Association considers the claim to be cost-increasing and precluded under the terms of Towards 2016.
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 3rd March, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd April, 2008, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believes that the claim is justified because of the dedication and experience of the staff involved. There is extra commitment and pressure involved to take care of clients because of their age profile which makes them increasingly more dependent.
2. There are increased emotional demands on staff as well as an increase in the amount of administrative work (details supplied to the Court).
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim, if conceded, would have significant financial implications for the Association and could lead to a large number of knock-on claims. It is already facing a huge deficit for 2008 and is being pressed by the HSE on a continuous basis to reduce its cost base. The additional cost of the claim is approximately €26,000.
2. The Union agreed a restructuring deal at national level for all instructor grades in 2004. At no stage was there a demand for additional annual leave for the grades involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court cannot accept that the Union's claim, as presented, could be classified as non-cost increasing. Accordingly, the claim is precluded by the pay agreement associated with the Towards 2016 National Partnership Agreement. Furthermore, the Court is not satisfied that there is any precedent in comparable employment for service related annual leave of the type claimed.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th May, 2008______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.