Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92208 Case Number: LCR13811 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Annual leave for clerical and administrative staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the Union's claim for parity of
annual leave with Local Authorities. The Court notes that whilst
salary scales in Local Authorities are national there is wide
disparity in the annual leave entitlements as between one
Authority and the other. The Court accordingly does not accept
that the claim is properly based.
The Court is of the view that a claim for increased annual leave
would be more correctly addressed in the context of negotiating on
a quid pro quo basis with management, and so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92208 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13811
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Annual leave for clerical and administrative staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Central Fisheries Board's Staff Scheme for Clerical and
Administrative employees provides for annual leave allowances in
line with the equivalent Civil Service grades. The scheme, which
was agreed and implemented in 1986 is common to the eight Regional
Fisheries Boards. Prior to the introduction of the scheme,
holiday entitlements varied in the different Regional Boards. In
the interest of uniformity it was agreed that the Civil Service
annual leave allowance would apply all round. The Union has
lodged a claim to have annual leave entitlements for its members
increased to the levels of that which applies in the Local
Authorities, to which their pay is linked. The Board rejects the
claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 23rd of January, 1992 and a Conciliation
Conference was held on the 28th of February, 1992 at which
agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 7th of April, 1992 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 14th of October, 1992 (the earliest date suitable
to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Staff Scheme, which was implemented in July, 1987,
confirms that the workers concerned, Administrative Assistant
Grades II, III and IV have parity of remuneration with Clerk
Typists Grade II, Clerical Officer Grade III and Assistant
Staff Officer Grade IV, respectively of the Local Authorities.
The amount of annual leave enjoyed by the workers is in
conflict with the parity agreement.
2. The workers concerned have given many years of service to
the Board. The lack of service-days and the general low level
of leave are a poor response to their loyal service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The staff scheme sets out the pay relativity of the
Administrative Assistant Grades II, III and IV with equivalent
grades in the Local Authority. The Scheme also sets out the
annual leave entitlements of these grades but does not specify
relativity with any other group. The annual leave
entitlements in the staff scheme correspond broadly to
equivalent grades in the Civil Service.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the Union's claim for parity of
annual leave with Local Authorities. The Court notes that whilst
salary scales in Local Authorities are national there is wide
disparity in the annual leave entitlements as between one
Authority and the other. The Court accordingly does not accept
that the claim is properly based.
The Court is of the view that a claim for increased annual leave
would be more correctly addressed in the context of negotiating on
a quid pro quo basis with management, and so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
27th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.