Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87613 Case Number: AD8777 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC (I) LTD - and - ITGWU;ATGWU |
Appeal by the Unions against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 118/87 concerning payment to workers on lay-off for public holidays (interpretation of agreement).
Recommendation:
10. Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the shop stewards who accepted the Company's
interpretation of the proposal on holidays exceeded their mandate
in this respect, possibly through pressure of work in the
circumstances in which the discussions took place. For this
reason the Court does not consider that the Employer's case based
as it is on such agreement, is sustainable. The document of 27th
February remains therefore to be interpreted by the Court, and
insofar as it does not distinguish between annual leave and public
holidays the Court is of the view that the Union's
interpretation is correct.
The Court therefore upholds the Union's appeal.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87613 THE LABOUR COURT AD7787
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 77 OF 1987
Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Unions against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 118/87 concerning payment to workers on
lay-off for public holidays (interpretation of agreement).
Background:
2. In January and February, 1987 there was an industrial dispute
in the plant, which was settled with a return to work on 2nd
March, 1987. The return to work was on a phased basis and those
not returning to work on that date were placed on temporary
lay-off. Prior to the return to work an agreement was made
between the Company and the Unions (details supplied to the
Court), which included provisions for holiday entitlements to the
workers as follows:
"In response to a request from the Unions, the Company
has agreed, for this unique, once-off occasion, that
employees on lay-off from Wednesday 25th February, 1987
will be considered to be excused absence and will
retain holiday entitlement for the period of lay-off
from 25th February, 1987."
3. Following the return to work, a dispute arose as to whether or
not payment for public holidays should be made to those laid-off
as per the agreement (this first of all occurred in relation to
St. Patrick's Day). The Company's understanding was that under
the pre-start up agreement payment would be made to those on
lay-off in respect of annual holidays but not in respect of public
holidays.
4. A local level meeting took place at which the Company argued
that it had already been clarified and agreed with two
representatives (shop-stewards) of the Union Committee that the
following would apply:
(a) A topping up of the difference between social welfare
entitlement for employees in respect of 17th March,
1987.
(b) Payment for public holidays thereafter in respect of
this lay-off period to be made only to those who are
back at work on or before the date upon which the
public holiday falls.
5. The Unions claimed that no such agreement had been made
between the Company and the Unions and claimed payment in respect
of public holidays for all workers on lay-off.
6. The Unions then referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on the 7th July, 1987, and issued the
following recommendation:-
"On the balance of evidence available to me, I am
satisfied that an agreement was made between the
parties which covered topping up of Social Welfare
benefit for 17th March, 1987. This agreement also
limited payment for future public holidays to those who
had returned to work at least on the day prior to
holiday. Underpinning this was a commitment by the
Company to pay the annual leave of all those on lay
off, irrespective of their lack of statutory
entitlement to such leave. Accordingly, I recommend
that the parties accept that such an agreement exists.
On the question of a strict interpretation of the
legislation covering public holidays, I explained at
the hearing that this office has no function in
relation to the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973. Any
worker with a grievance in this respect can refer their
case under the Act to the Minister for Labour.
Alternatively, they or their Union can recover any
monies which may be legally due as a simple contract
debt in a Court of law. However, in exercising this
right, any appellant should keep in mind the possible
adverse effect on the agreement above."
7. On 7th August, 1987 the Unions appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 18th September, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
8. (i) The pre-start up agreement of 27th February, 1987
(details supplied to the Court) provided for each
workers lay-off period to be treated as an excused
absence, therefore retaining the workers "holiday
entitlements."
(ii) The Department of Labour view (details supplied to the
Court) is that entitlement to public holidays continues
during temporary lay-off periods. Under the Holidays
(Employees) Act, 1973 there are four options for
compensating an employee for a Public Holiday. In view
of the current lay-off situation, the logical choice in
this case would be an extra day's pay. Any worker on
lay-off for St. Patrick's Day, Easter Monday, Whit
Monday and August Monday should be paid accordingly.
(iii) The Company position that an agreement was made with a
shop-steward is incorrect and invalid. No precedent
exists for the acceptance of any agreement of this
importance by an individual shop steward. If such an
agreement was reached it was made by an individual only
and so is invalid as no discussion at committee level
was involved, therefore no such agreement was reached
between the Company and the Unions. The Company were
aware that as the Unions processed this claim they did
not accept the "agreement" put forward by the Company.
Company's arguments:
9. (a) An agreement was made between the Company and duly
authorised members of the Union Committee. This
provided for the topping up of the difference between
social welfare entitlement and normal pay for 17th
March, 1987 and that for all other public holidays in
the lay-off period, payment only to be made to those
back at work on the public holiday. This was based on
an agreed interpretation of provisions for public
holidays as part of the holiday provisions in the
pre-start up agreement.
(b) For a long time the Company had been told that when a
duly authorised Committee member informed the Company
of a decision then that member was speaking on behalf
of the whole Union Committee. The Company therefore
acted on the basis of this agreement. The shop steward
involved has confirmed his understanding of the
agreement as being the same as the Company. The Rights
Commissioner based his recommendation on the evidence
before him and was satisfied that such an agreement was
made.
(c) The Company has honoured its commitment to pay full
annual leave entitlement in 1987. The workers had no
legal entitlement to this pay but the Company undertook
to make these payments in good faith and at a cost of
#136,640.00, at a time when the Company was earning no
revenue. The cost of paying public holidays in
addition would involve a significant sum of money.
DECISION:
10. Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the shop stewards who accepted the Company's
interpretation of the proposal on holidays exceeded their mandate
in this respect, possibly through pressure of work in the
circumstances in which the discussions took place. For this
reason the Court does not consider that the Employer's case based
as it is on such agreement, is sustainable. The document of 27th
February remains therefore to be interpreted by the Court, and
insofar as it does not distinguish between annual leave and public
holidays the Court is of the view that the Union's
interpretation is correct.
The Court therefore upholds the Union's appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
Deputy Chairman
5th October, 1987
U.M./J.C.