LCR23132

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 5 November 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 March 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

The parties are in dispute about the number of hours deducted from an “annual hours bank” when the employee receives a day’s leave on a public holiday.

The company uses a model of flexible annualised working hours, agreed with the union in 2003. The Flexible Working Agreement allows the company to operate different shift patterns depending on the seasonal demand for service. Employees are paid for a standard working week, but actual hours worked vary. During a week that an employee works longer hours, additional hours worked are “banked”.  During shorter working weeks, accrued hours are deducted from the “bank” to make up the employee’s shortfall. The plus and minus hours in the bank are calculated over a calendar year.

On public holidays, employees receive a day's leave and are paid their normal wages for that week. For full-time employees paid a 39-work week, the public holiday entitlement is calculated based on a standard 7.8-hour day using a five-day multiplier, with a pro-rata approach for those working less contractual hours.

It is accepted that the same mechanism for calculating public holiday entitlements has applied for many years.

The union contends that its members are unhappy with the system for calculating public holiday entitlements as it operates to their detriment and the negative impact has increased due to more recent shift and roster changes. The introduction of a four-day working week (Monday to Thursday) for employees in some centres, has led to a substantial increase in deductions made from an individual’s bank where the employee is rostered to work on a day that the public holiday falls. It submits that employee rostered to work 10.5 hours on a Monday receives 7.8 hours public holiday entitlement for that day and is left with a deficit which is deducted from their bank of hours. Where members have insufficient hours banked, they find themselves in a negative position. The union is seeking an immediate cessation of the practice, and a refund of all hours deducted since January 2024.

The employer’s position is that the same approach to calculating public holiday entitlements has been used regardless of what day the public holiday falls and is applied consistently, in line with the Flexible Working Agreement, irrespective of what shift pattern an employee works. Any shortfalls that arise balance out during the calendar year.  Furthermore, it submits that a previous dispute about the application of the agreement was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the WRC in 2016 where it was confirmed that the company were applying the rules of the agreement correctly.

The employer submits the more recent shift arrangements, which were introduced following feedback from staff, have proved very popular, however, it accepts that the introduction of four day working week (Monday to Thursday) in some centres has exposed an issue for some employees given that most public holidays fall on a Monday.

The Court has given careful considerate to the submissions made by both parties at the hearing.

The Court notes that the parties entered into a collective agreement providing for a flexible working annualised hours arrangement that has worked well in the main for 21 years.

The parties are in agreement that the Agreement has been applied as per its agreed terms. 

It is also accepted that the mechanism for calculating public holiday entitlements has been applied in the same way for many years and complies with statutory provisions.

The union submits that the mechanism for calculating public holiday entitlement is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be updated, as those working certain rosters are disproportionately impacted. It seeks that the Court recommend that the company ceases that practice with immediate effect, and a refund of hours deducted since January 2024 when they raised the matter with the company.

The employer, for its part, acknowledges that there is a disproportionate impact on employees working certain rosters and while it is willing to engage to address these concerns, it cautions against an approach which it says may have knock on consequence and end up discommoding more employees.

The parties have arrived at an impasse. The Court has frequently pointed out that no agreement is immutable for all time and circumstances may arise which it may be necessary to revise an agreement to reflect changing circumstances.

In this case, the union is seeking that the employer amend an established mechanism for calculating public holiday entitlement for a cohort of employees encompassed by the Flexible Working Agreement. The employer indicated to the Court that it is willing to engage on that issue but expressed concerns about the wider implications of any proposed changes. The Court notes that at the hearing there was a lack of clarity between the parties in relation to the precise nature of the matter in dispute.

Where changes are sought, parties must be willing to engage with each other to ensure there is full clarity and a common understanding on the proposed changes and, where any changes are agreed, they are managed in a clear, fair, and coherent manner.

The Court is of the view that the parties would benefit from further engagement on the changes sought by the union. The Court recommends that this engagement is progressed without delay, if necessary, with the assistance of the Workplace Relation Commission with a view to progressing matters within a three-month timeframe.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
ÁM	______________________
14th May 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.