Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87506 Case Number: LCR11481 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRINITY HOUSE SCHOOL - and - LGPSU |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately thirty-three Child Care Workers for the granting of an additional seven days annual leave.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, considers that in the special circumstances of
Trinity House a case exists for the granting of two additional
days annual leave. The Court recommends that the additional days
should be granted in the 1988 leave year.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87506 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11481
CC87400 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO.LCR11481
PARTIES: TRINITY HOUSE SCHOOL
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately thirty-three
Child Care Workers for the granting of an additional seven days
annual leave.
Background:
2. Trinity House School was opened in 1983, and is a
purpose-built secure centre for young offenders. The school can
provide accommodation for up to thirty boys. When staff were
first appointed to the centre in early 1983, they were granted the
same annual leave entitlements as similar grades employed in other
schools for young offenders. On 14th April, 1986, the Union
submitted a claim for an additional seven days annual leave for
Child Care Workers as a result of the disruptive effect shift work
has on their general well being and life-style. The Union said
that the situation in the school is unique, as it is the only
institution of its type in the country. The Child Care Workers
are required to be available for duty on a twenty-four hour basis
and they are also required to sleep over in the School at least
once a month. The Union further indicated that additional leave
arrangements exist in other areas of the Public Service. The
School said that they could not consider the Union's claim as a
result of the Minister for Finance's instructions that no special
pay increases be granted. On 25th February, 1987, the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. As
agreement could not be reached at a conciliation conference held
on 20th May, 1987, the matter was referred on 25th June, 1987, to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 6th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union is seeking additional leave for the workers
involved because their shift commitment is such that
it has a negative effect on their life-styles. The
workers must give a seven day, twenty-four hour
commitment to the centre, even though the hours from
midnight to eight a.m. are considered as 'sleep in'
and is performed over and above the normal working
week. The long-term effects of such work impinges not
only on the actual performance of work but also on the
general health, social and family life of the shift
workers. (Details of work rosters provided to the
Court).
(ii) Any previous arrangements regarding workers in other
institutions are irrelevant because when the rate of
pay was determined, the school did not exist and
further to this, the shift roster carried out in the
school is unique and does not exist anywhere else.
(iii) The commitment of the workers is total and unlike the
teaching staff, to whom they are related for pay
purposes, they do not enjoy school holidays and
throughout these periods they are heavily involved
with the children.
(iv) The Union understands that the granting of the leave
may cause difficulties for the school management,
however, the workers have always taken their annual
leave subject to the needs of the children.
School's arguments:
4. (a) When the workers were first appointed in early 1983,
they were granted the same annual leave entitlements
as those pertaining to similar grades employed in
existing special schools for young offenders.
(b) There is no justification for a 33.33% increase in
annual leave entitlements, especially in the light of
the Budget Speech of the Minister for Finance. To
grant such an increase would be irresponsible,
particularly in view of the current state of the
public finances, as evidenced by such measures as job
shedding and cut backs.
(c) The practice of awarding additional leave for shift
work is not applied throughout the Public Service.
The school is not aware of any group, apart from
certain grades in the Department of Transport, who
have additional leave because of its shift liability.
The grades in the Department of Transport who have
additional leave, receive it because of their seven
day, twenty-four hour liability, which does not occur
in his particular case. The workers here concerned
are only rostered for duty for sixteen to seventeen
hours per day.
(d) The workers currently have an annual leave entitlement
of twenty-one days, plus eight additional days in lieu
of Bank Holidays. The working conditions at the
school are no more stressful than those of Prison
Officers or Gardai. Neither of these forces have been
granted any additional leave. Their present
entitlements are as follows -
Prison Officer - Nineteen days, rising to twenty-two
days after five years service, plus
eight days in lieu of Bank Holidays.
Garda Siochana - Thirty-three days on the basis of a
monthly working cycle of twenty-eight
days.
The school believes that the Child Care Workers'
entitlements compare favourably with the above.
(e) If the school granted the Union's claim, it would cost
in the region of #18.000 per annum, as additional
leave would have to be covered on an overtime basis.
It would also have repercussive effects in other
special schools for young offenders and in the Public
Sector generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, considers that in the special circumstances of
Trinity House a case exists for the granting of two additional
days annual leave. The Court recommends that the additional days
should be granted in the 1988 leave year.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman