Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90427 Case Number: LCR13087 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SECURICOR LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 140 Security Officers and Patrol Staff concerning the method of calculating annual leave.
Recommendation:
5. Having reviewed the submissions and the additional evidence
presented by the parties at the hearing, the Court understands the
concerns of both sides in this case. On the Company side is the
fear that reduced competitiveness would flow from concession of
the Union claim while on the Union side is the concern that the
adoption of the Company proposals would leave the members with
reduced, rather than increased, annual leave. The Court finds
merit in the case presented by each side and therefore recommends
the following compromise:-
- the traditional way of calculating individual leave
days - i.e. one shift equals one day - should be
applied until the end of the 1990 leave year. How
best to deal with the adjustment necessary for the
period during which the company unilaterally applied
a different calculation - i.e. by additional leave or
payment in lieu - should be addressed directly by the
parties.
- for the 1991 and subsequent leave years, the Court
recommends that the company should not regard the
annual-leave entitlement of days taken individually
as being 8 hours. Instead, the annual-leave
entitlement when taken as individual days should be
as follows:-
When working a 14 hr shift : 12 hrs
" " a 12 hr " : 10 hrs
" " a 10 hr " : 9 hrs
" " a 8 hr : : 8 hrs
The basic weekly payments should of course remain unchanged and be
applied as heretofore.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90427 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13087
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SECURICOR LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 140 Security
Officers and Patrol Staff concerning the method of calculating
annual leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. Up to 1987, the workers concerned got 19 days annual leave - 2
weeks in the summer, a week in winter and 4 casual days taken at
times agreeable to or agreed with the Company. The 2 weeks summer
and 1 week winter were based on a 40 hour week and holiday pay was
calculated on that basis. In the case of the 4 casual days, a
worker got paid on the basis of the shift he was working that
particular week. This meant that the days leave could be worth 8,
10, 12 or 14 hours, depending upon the shift. In January, 1988,
the annual leave entitlement was increased to 20 days. The
Company at this time changed the basis of calculating annual leave
to a total of 160 hours for the 20 days. The Union disputed the
change saying that it would mean that workers would get less
time-off for 20 days than they had been getting off for 19 days.
Prolonged discussions between the parties failed to resolve the
matter and on 18th June, 1990, it was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 9th July, 1990, and the dispute
was referred on 18th July, 1990, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 28th September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union made it clear since 1987 that any changes in
the method of calculating annual leave must be discussed prior
to such a change. Despite this the Company unilaterally
applied a new method of calculation.
2. The Union contends that with the introduction, through
negotiation, of an additional days annual leave the
calculating of payment for the leave should not result in a
reduction in leave for the workers concerned.
3. 3. It is common practice in industry, that if workers are
involved in specific shift cycles, on a permanent basis, that
their payment for leave reflects the same hours they work on
shift.
4. Before the introduction of the extra days leave the
workers were paid either 8, 10, 12 or 14 hour for the 4
individual days leave, if taken as individual days. This
clearly establishes the method of payment for an individual
days leave if it falls as part of the normal shift. This
method of calculation must now be extended to the additional
days leave.
5. The workers concerned carry out difficult tasks for the
Company. Their hours can be long and unsocial. Their basic
remuneration is such that all work a regular amount of
overtime to give them a reasonable take-home wage.
6. As a result of the Company's decision to unilaterally
change the method of calculating annual leave, the workers
have lost out on payment for the 5th individual day at the
proper hours. The Union claims that full retrospection must
be provided for all hours not paid to the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It has been clear for some time that the majority of
staff were taking the individual days off on the longer
shifts, i.e. 12 or 14 hour shifts, instead of the 8 hour shift
as envisaged by the Company. The Company felt that this abuse
of the system could not be allowed to continue as the costs
could not be passed on to the customer.
2. Staff have an entitlement to 20 days or 160 hours leave.
If the worker takes an 8 hour shift off, his leave entitlement
is reduced by 8 hours. If he takes a 12 hour shift off, his
leave entitlement is reduced by 12 hours.
3. Under the Union's proposal if everyone took off 12 hour
shifts they would receive 60 hours off rather than 40 hours.
This is 20 hours more than the Company budgeted for. This was
never the intention.
4. All the calculations for wages and other conditions are
calculated in hours. Guards are paid an hourly rate and
contracts are tendered for on an hourly basis. Under the
Holiday Act, which says that the Company determines when
annual leave may be taken, workers qualify for holidays on the
basis of the number of hours worked. In the security industry
the hourly rate of pay is very important. To concede the
Union's claim would result in an increase in the hourly rate
which would erode the Company's ability to retain existing
contracts and tender for new ones.
4. 5. The Company is not adverse to employees having single
days off. Since May, 1989, the Company has been operating on
the basis of two weeks off in summer, one week in winter and
the remaining 40 hours/5 days leave is used up according to
the length of shift being taken off, to a maximum of 40 hours.
The Company requests the Court to uphold this method of
calculation of leave entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having reviewed the submissions and the additional evidence
presented by the parties at the hearing, the Court understands the
concerns of both sides in this case. On the Company side is the
fear that reduced competitiveness would flow from concession of
the Union claim while on the Union side is the concern that the
adoption of the Company proposals would leave the members with
reduced, rather than increased, annual leave. The Court finds
merit in the case presented by each side and therefore recommends
the following compromise:-
- the traditional way of calculating individual leave
days - i.e. one shift equals one day - should be
applied until the end of the 1990 leave year. How
best to deal with the adjustment necessary for the
period during which the company unilaterally applied
a different calculation - i.e. by additional leave or
payment in lieu - should be addressed directly by the
parties.
- for the 1991 and subsequent leave years, the Court
recommends that the company should not regard the
annual-leave entitlement of days taken individually
as being 8 hours. Instead, the annual-leave
entitlement when taken as individual days should be
as follows:-
When working a 14 hr shift : 12 hrs
" " a 12 hr " : 10 hrs
" " a 10 hr " : 9 hrs
" " a 8 hr : : 8 hrs
The basic weekly payments should of course remain unchanged and be
applied as heretofore.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
26th November, 1990 ---------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman