Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92350 Case Number: LCR13805 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE AND FINANCE UNION |
A claim for parity of leave for technical staff in C.D.V.E.C. with University College Dublin (U.C.D.) technical staff.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the present breakdown as between annual and concessionary leave
the Court does not find basis for recommending concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92350 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13805
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
(C.D.V.E.C.)
and
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE AND FINANCE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim for parity of leave for technical staff in C.D.V.E.C.
with University College Dublin (U.C.D.) technical staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In both U.C.D. and C.D.V.E.C., leave arrangements for
technical staff are comprised of an annual leave entitlement
together with an allocation of concession days at Christmas
and Easter. The Union's claim is for parity in the totality
of leave entitlement (annual leave plus concession leave).
The current arrangements are as follows:
U.C.D. C.D.V.E.C.
Annual Leave 18 19 days
Concession Days 9 5.50 days
Total 27 24.50 days.
2. No progress was made at local discussions and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 22nd May, 1992.
3. At conciliation the Union claimed that a parity in leave
arrangements existed following a 1978 agreement which gave a
total entitlement to C.D.V.E.C. staff of 23.50 days as against a
total entitlement in U.C.D. of 23 days. At that time U.C.D.
staff had 15 annual leave days (18 in C.D.V.E.C.) and 8
concession days (5.50 in C.D.V.E.C.). Increases in annual leave
entitlements to U.C.D. staff in the meantime taken together
with an increase in concession days has lead to the current
dispute.
4. The V.E.C. claim that it was incorrect to aggregate annual
leave and concession days in order to arrive at a total leave
entitlement. Concessions days, are by definition a
discretionary leave entitlement. In that context the
C.D.V.E.C. claim that C.D.V.E.C. staff have a superior
entitlement to annual leave than U.C.D. staff. The V.E.C.
further claim that parity with U.C.D. staff has never been
conceded for leave purposes. Parity exists between both
groups in respect of other conditions of employment.
5. As no progress was possible, the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on 11th
June, 1992. A Labour Court investigation took place on the
7th October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A discrepancy of 2/3 days has arisen between U.C.D. and
C.D.V.E.C. since the leave arrangements were equalised in 1978
(details supplied). The C.D.V.E.C. has claimed that
technicians are related to the general operative grade in
C.D.V.E.C. for leave purposes. This relationship is rejected
by the Union and has never been upheld by the Labour Court.
The C.D.V.E.C. technicians have parity with their U.C.D.
colleagues on all important conditions of service (details
supplied). This parity has been well established and must be
maintained in relation to annual leave entitlements.
2. The parity between the leave arrangements for technicians
in the C.D.V.E.C. and those in U.C.D. is the method that has
been used in the past to set the leave entitlements for
technicians in the C.D.V.E.C. A discrepancy has now arisen
and this must be addressed. The Union is willing to discuss
any extra costs which may arise. No extra payroll costs
arise.
C.D.V.E.C.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The C.D.V.E.C. responded in 1977 to a specific leave claim
from the Union. It did not however concede parity with
technicians employed by U.C.D. Even at the time, the
concession of 3 extra day's annual leave to technicians did
not amount to the total time off allowed to technicians in
U.C.D. The Union has on a number of occasions since 1977,
attempted to establish parity with U.C.D. technicians for the
purposes of annual leave. This was never conceded by the
C.D.V.E.C. and it has never existed in theory or practice.
2. This is a cost increasing claim and is therefore debarred
under the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.). The concession of the claim would have
repercussive effects in the general V.E.C. area (details
supplied). The granting of annual leave to redress an
imbalance in concessionary leave is inequitable given the
variability and nature of such leave. Concessionary leave for
new technicians at U.C.D. has been reduced by 4 days.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the present breakdown as between annual and concessionary leave
the Court does not find basis for recommending concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
27th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.