Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89576 Case Number: AD8965 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NATIONAL IRISH BANK LIMITED - and - |
Recommendation:
0
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
0
RecPara: recommendation.
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara: The Union, on 30th August, 1989, appealed this recommendation to
RecPara: the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
RecPara: Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 20th September, 1989.
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara: UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
RecPara: 3. 1. There has been no agreement between the Union and the Bank
RecPara: concerning the annual leave rota. The Union does not accept
RecPara: that the rota is now the norm as it was not negotiated and is
RecPara: not accepted by all of its members.
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara: 2. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing the Bank agreed to
RecPara: submit copies of the relevant rotas to the Rights Commissioner
RecPara: and to the Union. The Bank, however has failed to forward
RecPara: copies of the rota for 1986/87 to the Union.
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara: 3. The worker concerned had been scheduled number four on the
RecPara: annual leave rota in 1986/87 and 1987/88 but had reverted to
RecPara: number five in both years to facilitate two other security
RecPara: officers who were allocated number four respectively by
RecPara: agreement due to special circumstances. In the 1988/89 leave
RecPara: year the worker was scheduled again at number four and took
RecPara: his leave accordingly. The worker is being discriminated
RecPara: against by being scheduled at number ten in the 1989/90 leave
RecPara: year and should be given his holiday choice this year pending
RecPara: the negotiation of an agreed rota for the future.
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara: BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
RecPara: 4. 1. The annual leave rota has become established as custom and
RecPara: practice since its introduction in the 1986/87 annual leave
RecPara: year. It is normal practice for the security guard at number
RecPara: four on the rota to revert to number ten on the rota in the
RecPara: following year. As the worker concerned was number four on
RecPara: the rota in the 1988/89 annual leave year he should revert to
RecPara: number ten in the 1989/90 annual leave year.
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara: 4. 2. In the 1986/87 and 1987/88 leave years the worker
RecPara: concerned reverted to number five from number four on the rota
RecPara: due to the very special circumstances of two different
RecPara: security guards who required to have precedence in choice of
RecPara: annual leave (i.e. number four place on rota) in the 1986/87
RecPara: and 1987/88 leave years respectively. The worker concerned
RecPara: has not put forward any special reasons why he should revert
RecPara: to number five on the rota for the 1989/90 leave year from
RecPara: number four, (in 1988/89).
RecPara:
RecPara: 3. The worker concerned is seeking to reverse the direction
RecPara: of the rota to suit himself. This change has not been
RecPara: requested by any of the other security guards and would
RecPara: seriously disrupt the annual leave arrangements for 1989/90.
RecPara: However the Bank is prepared to discuss reversal of the rota
RecPara: direction in time for next year provided this is the agreed
RecPara: and common wish of all the security guards.
RecPara:
RecPara: 4. The annual leave rota is fair and equitable and meets in
RecPara: full the requirements of the Holiday (Employees) Act, 1973.
RecPara: The rota has been accepted by the security guards for the last
RecPara: four years and the worker concerned should accept the rota as
RecPara: operated.
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara:
RecPara: DECISION:
RecPara:
RecPara: 5. The Court, noting that the Bank are prepared to discuss the
RecPara: operation of a new holiday rota with the Union, does not find any
RecPara: basis for altering the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
RecPara: accordingly rejects the appeal.
EmployerReps:
Section: S13(9)
RecSigned: 05/10/89
Subject: Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW 171/89
Subject: concerning annual leave arrangements for a security guard.
RecToTyping: 22/09/89
DisputeType: ANNUAL LEAVE
Venue:
WorkerClass: SERVICE WORKERS
DateWithdrawn:
WorkerParty: IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;NO. 15 BRANCH
Worker: Ms. Ni Mhurchu
Body:
CD89576 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6589
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: NATIONAL IRISH BANK LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(NO. 15 BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation CW 171/89 concerning annual leave arrangements for
a security guard.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is one of ten security guards employed by
the Bank in College Green. Three of the security guards have
longer service than the other seven who joined the Bank at a later
stage. The three security guards with the longer service were
given first, second and third preference respectively in choice of
annual leave each year, while the other seven security guards were
allocated the choice of annual leave on a rota basis. The rota
system commenced operation in the 1986/87 annual leave year. The
Bank contends that the basis for the rota is that whoever was
tenth one year would be ninth the next and so on until they
reached fourth position when they would revert to tenth on the
list again. Accordingly as the worker concerned was fourth on the
rota in the 1988/89 leave year he should revert to tenth position
in the 1989/90 leave year. The Union claims that the rota was
never negotiated or agreed with the Bank and that the worker
concerned should be given his choice of annual leave in the
1989/90 leave year pending the negotiation of an agreed rota. The
matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated the
dispute on 13th July, 1989 and issued the following recommendation
on 18th July, 1989:-
Recommendation:
"..I recommend that the *worker accepts the Bank
interpretation that his place on the rota this year
is tenth."
* The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Union, on 30th August, 1989, appealed this recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 20th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has been no agreement between the Union and the Bank
concerning the annual leave rota. The Union does not accept
that the rota is now the norm as it was not negotiated and is
not accepted by all of its members.
2. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing the Bank agreed to
submit copies of the relevant rotas to the Rights Commissioner
and to the Union. The Bank, however has failed to forward
copies of the rota for 1986/87 to the Union.
3. The worker concerned had been scheduled number four on the
annual leave rota in 1986/87 and 1987/88 but had reverted to
number five in both years to facilitate two other security
officers who were allocated number four respectively by
agreement due to special circumstances. In the 1988/89 leave
year the worker was scheduled again at number four and took
his leave accordingly. The worker is being discriminated
against by being scheduled at number ten in the 1989/90 leave
year and should be given his holiday choice this year pending
the negotiation of an agreed rota for the future.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The annual leave rota has become established as custom and
practice since its introduction in the 1986/87 annual leave
year. It is normal practice for the security guard at number
four on the rota to revert to number ten on the rota in the
following year. As the worker concerned was number four on
the rota in the 1988/89 annual leave year he should revert to
number ten in the 1989/90 annual leave year.
4. 2. In the 1986/87 and 1987/88 leave years the worker
concerned reverted to number five from number four on the rota
due to the very special circumstances of two different
security guards who required to have precedence in choice of
annual leave (i.e. number four place on rota) in the 1986/87
and 1987/88 leave years respectively. The worker concerned
has not put forward any special reasons why he should revert
to number five on the rota for the 1989/90 leave year from
number four, (in 1988/89).
3. The worker concerned is seeking to reverse the direction
of the rota to suit himself. This change has not been
requested by any of the other security guards and would
seriously disrupt the annual leave arrangements for 1989/90.
However the Bank is prepared to discuss reversal of the rota
direction in time for next year provided this is the agreed
and common wish of all the security guards.
4. The annual leave rota is fair and equitable and meets in
full the requirements of the Holiday (Employees) Act, 1973.
The rota has been accepted by the security guards for the last
four years and the worker concerned should accept the rota as
operated.
DECISION:
5. The Court, noting that the Bank are prepared to discuss the
operation of a new holiday rota with the Union, does not find any
basis for altering the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
accordingly rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evleyn Owens
__5th___October,___1989. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman