Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9341 Case Number: LCR14447 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DATAPRODUCTS (DUBLIN) - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION (A.E.E.U. |
Paid leave for attendance at shop stewards training course.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is of
the view that the particular course in question, dealing as it did
with the changes brought about by the Pensions Act, 1990, was of
particular importance and recommends that paid time off was
appropriate in this instance.
The Court accordingly recommends that the worker be paid for the
time involved.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9341 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14447
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DATAPRODUCTS (DUBLIN)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION (A.E.E.U.)
SUBJECT:
1. Paid leave for attendance at shop stewards training course.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned (Shop Steward) in the dispute is
employed by the Company as a storekeeper. In January, 1992,
the Union on behalf of the worker applied for 3 days paid
leave to enable him to attend at a training course (basic
pension course) for shop stewards. The Company refused the
paid leave but indicated that leave would be granted at the
worker's own expense.
The worker applied for 3 days annual leave and indicated his
intention to pursue a claim for 3 days paid leave through
agreed procedures.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 8th May, 1992, but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 13th January, 1993, under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took
place on 4th May, 1994 (the earliest suitable date to both
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The A.E.E.U. as part of its education programme for shop
stewards include a 3-day basic pension course. The
purpose of this course is to give the participants a
better understanding of pension schemes.
2. The worker concerned has been a shop steward at
Dataproducts for over 12 years and has never attended a
basic pension course.
3. There were 14 participants on the course and
Dataproducts was the only employer who refused paid
leave.
4. It is normal and good industrial relations practice for
employers to release shop stewards on paid leave for the
purpose of attending training courses.
5. The Employer Labour Conference has consistently
encouraged paid release for shop stewards attending
trade union courses and the Labour Court in previous
recommendations has supported that view.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company fully understands that the area of pension
schemes and applicable legislation is of importance to
its staff. However, when evaluating the worker's
request it had to be borne in mind that the entire
workforce had recently elected another worker as their
employee trustee for 5 years. He had received training
in this matter from the Company's pension brokers.
2. The Company has an accepted system for assisting
employees on pensions i.e. through the employee trustee
and their liaison with Mercer Fraser PLC. via the
personnel department. This arrangement had been in
operation for years with considerable success. In the
circumstances it was not necessary to allow the worker
time off to attend union training on the matter.
3. The worker's application for paid time off was also
considered in the context of the Company's general
policy of allowing union members attend one relevant
training course every 12 months. The worker as an
A.E.E.U. shop steward for over 8 years was aware of this
policy.
4. The Company has been fair and reasonable in evaluating
requests for union training from all staff. Since 1989,
the worker has received 15 days paid leave, for
training. In 1989 and 1992 the Company recognised the
validity of his requests and allowed him attend 2
courses in the same year.
5. In the circumstances the Company would urge the Court to
uphold its position and to reject the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is of
the view that the particular course in question, dealing as it did
with the changes brought about by the Pensions Act, 1990, was of
particular importance and recommends that paid time off was
appropriate in this instance.
The Court accordingly recommends that the worker be paid for the
time involved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd May, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.