Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87345 Case Number: LCR11344 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - and - ITGWU |
(a) Claim on behalf of approximately eighty employees for improved annual leave arrangements. (b) Claim on behalf of ten employees for disturbance compensation.
Recommendation:
9. As regards the claim concerning annual leave the Court
recommends that the Union accepts the Company's offer to implement
annual leave uniformly in accordance with the provisions of the
Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 with effect from 1st January, 1987.
The Court further recommends that this should be applied to the
1986 leave year and that the parties should negotiate a suitable
arrangement for those employees who lost annual leave under the
Company's method of calculation in that year.
The Court, noting the Company's undertakings at the Court hearing
in relation to the new extension, does not find it possible to
recommend concession of the claim for disturbance compensation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87345 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11344
CC87115 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11344
PARTIES: IRISH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. (a) Claim on behalf of approximately eighty employees for
improved annual leave arrangements.
(b) Claim on behalf of ten employees for disturbance
compensation.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of boxes at its
premises at Roxboro Road, Limerick. Two matters of dispute have
arisen between management and the Union concerning annual leave
and disturbance compensation, as outlined hereunder. Following
failure to agree at local level, the matters were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 23rd January, 1987 and
a conciliation conference took place on 23rd April, 1987, the
earliest date suitable to the parties. No agreement being
reached, the matters were referred to a full hearing of the Labour
Court. The hearing took place on 7th July, 1987, in Limerick.
Claim (a) - annual leave
Background:
3. The workers have 15 days' annual leave under the Holidays
Employees Act, 1973 plus 5 additional days obtained by
negotiations, including National Agreements, in the years since
then. The full 15 statutory days are granted by the Society to
any worker giving the required minimum attendance under the Act
(1400 hours over 35 weeks) plus a proportion of the 5 additional
days depending on the level of the worker's additional attendance.
Attendance is reviewed each December and leave for the year
calculated. Following the annual review of attendance which took
place in December, 1986, a number of workers had insufficient
leave for the Christmas holiday period and had to take unpaid
leave. The Union objected to the Company's method of calculating
leave and sought to have the full 20 days leave implemented on the
same basis as the 15 days provided for under the Act, i.e. that
workers with a minimum of 1400 hours attendance over 35 weeks
should get the full 20 days. The Society was not agreeable to
this. At conciliation, however, the Society agreed to concede the
claim from 1st January, 1987. The Union sought its application
for 1986 also.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The annual leave entitlement of the workers is twenty
days. No distinction can be made between one part of
that entitlement and another. Four of the five days
at issue were negotiated under National Wage
Agreements which specifically stated that no special
conditions applied to entitlement to these days. The
fifth day, when negotiated, had no special condition
attached.
(ii) The Society, without the knowledge of the Union,
applied unreasonable conditions to the granting of
these five days' leave. Such conditions do not apply
elsewhere.
(iii) The proposal to concede the Union's claim from 1st
January 1987 was not acceptable to the workers. It is
felt that workers are owed holidays which were wrongly
deducted.
Society's arguments:
5. (a) In accordance with the Holidays (Employees) Act, an
employee is entitled to one and a quarter days annual
leave for each month (120 hours) in employment to
which the Act applies. The Society has always
apportioned statutory annual leave accordingly. Thus,
for 1,400 hours or less an employee is entitled to
have fifteen days annual leave or part thereof. Where
an employee worked more than 1,400 hours but less than
a full leave year, he/she became entitled to 1.667
days leave per month worked, or a full 20 days annual
leave for full attendance in a leave year. Thus it
follows that an employee who works ten months is
entitled to 20 x 10/12. (The maximum number of days
annual leave available always being used to multiply
the quotient).
(b) This system has operated at the Co-operative since the
statutory minimum was first augmented generally. The
system was known and understood by the workforce from
its inception. Records show that in 1984 when there
was a strike at the Society, holiday entitlement was
reduced for those involved by two and a half days and
the calculations were done strictly in accordance with
the formula set out above. Several notices have been
posted on general notice boards down through the years
informing employees of their attendance related
entitlement.
(c) The Society contends that the system which it has
operated to date is fully in accordance with the terms
of the Act.
Claim (b) - Disturbance Compensation
Background:
6. There are two factory buildings on the Society's site, the
main building and a second building, referred to as the "Eurofab"
building some 150 yards away. In 1980 the Society moved ten
workers from the main building to the Eurofab building. The
workers initially objected to the move but following negotiations
made the move on the basis that conditions in the Eurofab building
would be better than those in the main building. As a cost saving
exercise, the Society recently moved the workers back to the main
building. The Union considers that there has been a
disimprovement in their working conditions and sought compensation
of #750 (after tax) to each of the workers involved. The Society
was unwilling to pay any compensation.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) The ten workers originally moved to the Eurofab
building, making no claim for disturbance compensation
since they accepted that conditions there were better
than existed in the main factory building.
(ii) In the Eurofab building, the workers enjoyed a larger
workspace, better lighting and access and had control
over the temperature of the work environment. They
had better toilet and locker facilities and music
played over loudspeakers provided a pleasant working
atmosphere. The main factory, by comparison, is noisy
and over-crowded and has inadequate toilet facilities.
The workers have no control over temperature or
ventilation.
(iii) The staff canteen is located in the Eurofab building
which was much more convenient for the workers when
they were located there. They must now use the
factory tea room for tea breaks. This does not
compare favourably with the canteen which they used
previously. The workers now use the canteen only for
main meal breaks.
(iv) The Society will make a considerable saving as a
result of the move. Some of this saving should be
passed on to the workers. The Union is claiming #750
net, per worker.
Society's arguments:
8. (a) Plans are currently at an advanced stage for an
extension to the main factory which will include new
toilet and shower facilities for employees. Working
conditions will improve when the extension to the
factory is completed. Matters such as inventory
storage and basic house keeping will be two areas
where the Society will expect to see an improvement.
(The Society at the Court hearing stated that the
extension would be completed by the end of August,
1987).
(b) In the time following the transfer of staff to the
Eurofab building there were very many occasions when
staff who normally worked in Eurofab were required to
work for full or parts of days in the main factory
building. This interchangeability and flexibility of
work station resulted in, on some occasions, employees
going from one building to another a number of times
in one day.
(c) Noise levels in the main factory are significantly
below the maximum allowed, even when all machines in
the building are in operation. Music which is played
over speakers in the main factory is clearly audible
at many work stations.
(d) Heating in the main building is much better than in
the Eurofab building, (the difficulty in heating this
building for such a small number of workers was one of
the reasons why a decision to relocate was made).
Furthermore the main factory heaters can be used to
cool the working area in summer, should the need
arise.
(e) The main building houses a canteen which can
accommodate forty people and is used for the fifteen
minute tea break on each shift. This canteen would
not be utilised to capacity at any stage even if all
those on a shift were to use the facility. The
canteen in question is the same one which was used by
a significantly larger number of staff prior to
redundancies in the Society.
(f) The Society does not consider that any disturbance
compensation is warranted in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. As regards the claim concerning annual leave the Court
recommends that the Union accepts the Company's offer to implement
annual leave uniformly in accordance with the provisions of the
Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 with effect from 1st January, 1987.
The Court further recommends that this should be applied to the
1986 leave year and that the parties should negotiate a suitable
arrangement for those employees who lost annual leave under the
Company's method of calculation in that year.
The Court, noting the Company's undertakings at the Court hearing
in relation to the new extension, does not find it possible to
recommend concession of the claim for disturbance compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman