FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : RYAN BROTHERS (QUARRY) LIMITED (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. Interpretation and application of Holiday Pay and Bonus Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the interpretation of holiday pay from an agreement reached in October, 2005. Clause 2 of the agreement relating to holiday pay stated:
"When an employee is taking annual leave, the average overtime earnings of the previous 13 weeks are calculated and a payment of 50% of this is added to the holiday pay for each day's leave taken."
The problem is that the Union's interpretation would give an employee five times as much as the Company's interpretation (the parties supplied details of how they arrived at their calculations.) The parties contacted the Employee Relations Facilitator and Arbitrator who was involved in the agreement in October, 2005, for his interpretation and his reply was as follows:
2. Common sense. It would transgress the bounds of common sense to have both parties agree to an agreement whereby the overtime element added to the holiday pay would be 2.5 times greater than the actual average weekly overtime for the proceeding 13 weeks.
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 30th November, 2007, 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 agreement of 2005 is quite clear in its wording and the Union believes that its interpretation is correct. There is no mention of dividing the weekly average overtime by 5 and then applying 50% of this figure per day's leave. Both sides accepted the wording in the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company is at a loss as to how the Union came to its interpretation. No reasonable employer could be expected to pay an employee 2.5 times the average overtime earnings for each day's annual leave taken. The Facilitator agreed with the Company's interpretation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the interpretation placed on the agreement by the Union would produce an absurd result which could not have been intended. Furthermore, the wording of the agreement does not support the interpretation.
Accordingly, the Court supports the Company's construction of the clause at issue.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st May, 2008______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.