Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9364 Case Number: LCR13993 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of library attendants, mobile library van drivers and cleaners for the restoration of privilege days (2 days paid leave taken at Easter and Christmas).
Recommendation:
7. The Court, after careful examination of the evidence submitted
to it, has come to the view that there are certain exceptional
circumstances relating to the Library Services which merit special
consideration. The Court therefore recommends that the
Corporation's offer of compensation be substituted by the
restoration of one of the privilege days in dispute and that both
sides accept this recommendation as being entirely exceptional and
relating solely to the Library Services.
The restored day should apply in and from 1993.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9364 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of library attendants, mobile
library van drivers and cleaners for the restoration of privilege
days (2 days paid leave taken at Easter and Christmas).
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned were granted privilege days at Christmas
and Easter after a number of years. In 1990, the days were
withdrawn from them by the Corporation on the basis that they had
been granted in error. According to the Corporation privilege
days are restricted to officer grades and office messengers and
porters. Non-officer workers are granted a half-day's leave with
pay on Christmas Eve.
3. The Unions lodged a claim for the restoration of the privilege
days. The Corporation rejected the claim but offered two and a
half-days pay as compensation in respect of the loss of the
privilege days. The settlement terms are in line with a formula
agreed following a Rights Commissioner's investigation into a
similar claim on behalf of workers in the Roads Maintenance
(Pavements) Section in 1982. The Labour Court subsequently upheld
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation (Appeal Decision No.
AD5782).
4. The same formula was put to staff in the Engineering
Department's Drawing Office who also had their privilege days
withdrawn in 1990. The compensation offer was accepted by these
workers and rejected by the Library staff. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 25th May, 1992. A
conciliation conference was held on 1st October, 1992. As no
agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of the
parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 20th January,
1993 for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 2nd March, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers concerned were not party to the agreement
reached with the workers in the Roads Maintenance (Pavements)
Division in 1982.
2. The Corporation should have ascertained the full extent of
the existence of the leave days in 1982 and dealt with the
complete group of workers. It is unfair, now that another
group is discovered, to offer them a ten year old formula
without considering any alternative position.
3. The staff in the libraries are a separate group and most
have long service. The claim is not for extra leave but for
the restoration of something the workers have enjoyed for
years.
4. Librarians, at all levels, enjoy privilege days. As the
libraries close for an extended period at Easter and Christmas
the workers concerned are now forced to take annual leave,
whereas librarians are not.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers concerned were granted privilege days in
error. When errors of this nature are discovered they must be
corrected, because of repercussive effects.
2. In 1982, a Rights Commissioner recommended a formula of
compensation in a similar claim. This position was
subsequently endorsed by the Labour Court in Appeals Decision
No. AD5782, dated 29th November, 1982 and in recommendation
No. LCR11449 dated 7th October, 1987.
3. Conditions for various groups of employees in the
Corporation differ. Consequently, comparison with other
groups who enjoy privilege days is not valid.
4. The Corporation's increasingly serious financial position
does not permit payment for overtime or for substitutions if
the claim were conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, after careful examination of the evidence submitted
to it, has come to the view that there are certain exceptional
circumstances relating to the Library Services which merit special
consideration. The Court therefore recommends that the
Corporation's offer of compensation be substituted by the
restoration of one of the privilege days in dispute and that both
sides accept this recommendation as being entirely exceptional and
relating solely to the Library Services.
The restored day should apply in and from 1993.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
________________
12th March, 1993 Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.