Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88738 Case Number: LCR12174 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HELP INDUSTRIES - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of supervisors for three additional days annual leave after five years service.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that sufficient evidence was
presented to support concession of the claim and while the claim
may have been originally presented in 1985 it was not pursued
thereafter and is thus contrary to the terms of the National
Programme for Recovery. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88738 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12174
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HELP INDUSTRIES
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of supervisors for three additional days
annual leave after five years service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Cork Polio & General After-Care
Association. The workers concerned supervise physically and
mentally disabled trainees in sheltered workshops. In March, 1988
the Union served a claim on the Company for an increase in annual
leave for these workers from 21 to 24 days after five years
service. (The Union position is that this claim was originally
made in 1985). The claim was rejected by the Company and on 5th
May, 1988 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 21st
June, 1988 at which agreement could not be reached and on 30th
September, 1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 16th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The supervisors have responsibility for training between
six (in specialised areas) and twenty five trainees. They
must also supervise production levels in the factory and
ensure that goods are produced to a high standard. The
workers make a valuable contribution to the training and
supervision of handicapped young adults and should be in
receipt of the same conditions as similarly graded workers.
The claim was first served in 1985 and is not therefore in
conflict with the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery.
2. Other groups of workers in the Association, including
clerical and administrative staff, receive 24 days annual
leave after five years service. Supervisors in the National
Rehabilitation Board receive 24 days annual leave and 3
privilege days and a further 2 days annual leave after 5 years
service and workers in St Anthony's Rehabilitation Centre
receive 24 days annual leave. The extra annual leave would
not involve any additional costs to the Association as the
supervisors provide cover for each other.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The existing annual leave entitlement of the supervisors
is in line with that applicable to such workers in sheltered
workshops throughout the country. The most direct and valid
comparisons with this service are those operated by St. John
of Gods and the Brothers of Charity Service where similar
categories of workers have 21 days annual leave. These
represent the national standard for supervisors employed in
sheltered workshops.
2. The claim is of a cost increasing nature and is
therefore in conflict with clause 4 of the Programme for
National Recovery. Any concession of this claim would have
serious cost effects for the Association, which would not be
sanctioned by the Departments of Health and Education.
Similar claims from other unions have already been rejected
and any change in this position would result in the
re-activation of such claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider that sufficient evidence was
presented to support concession of the claim and while the claim
may have been originally presented in 1985 it was not pursued
thereafter and is thus contrary to the terms of the National
Programme for Recovery. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
16th December, 1988 ----------------
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman