Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95349 Case Number: LCR15023 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTENARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
May bank holiday.
Recommendation:
(b) the church holy day falling in the same year
immediately after the public holiday."
Ascension Thursday is the church holy day immediately
following the May public holiday. Accordingly, the
Society's practice of affording leave on that day
adequately meets the requirements of the Act.
3. The introduction of the May public holiday increased the
legal minimum public holiday entitlement to 9 days. The
Society's leave allocation exceeds that minimum. There
is no basis for requiring the Society to grant a further
day's leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully examined the submissions from both
parties, and the relevant sections of the Holidays (Employees)
Act, 1973. Substitution of a church holy day for a public holiday
is clearly covered by the Act. However, this does not mean that
when an additional public holiday is granted to workers it does
not give a Company the overall right to reduce the number of
church holy days previously granted.
The Court accordingly recommends that the workers herein concerned
be granted the May Day public holiday and implemented in
accordance with the terms of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973.
The Court further recommends that the parties enter into
negotiations on the overall question of the number of church holy
days to be granted in any year.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95349 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15023
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CENTENARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. May bank holiday.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns fifty workers who are involved in bulk
milk collection, the milk, dairy and clerical areas. The
Union is claiming that the May bank holiday should be added
to existing leave entitlements with effect from May, 1994
(the date it was introduced). The Company rejected the claim
on the grounds that the employees already had sufficient
holidays. Management proposes to allow the bank holiday but
withdraw the entitlement to a church holy day thus leaving
the total entitlement the same, following application of the
May holiday, as it had been heretofore. The Union rejected
the proposal. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held
on the 3rd May, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 2nd June, 1995. A Court hearing
was held in Roscrea on the 28th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union cannot accept the Company's proposal/argument
that the May bank holiday would only be conceded by
substituting an existing entitlement to a church holy
day. Prior to 1994 the workers concerned have always
enjoyed the benefit of three concessionary days
holidays. Management's proposal would have the effect
of not only reducing this number to two but also of
denying workers the benefit of an additional national
holiday entitlement applied throughout the country.
2. The Company's proposal would negate the additional
national allocation by the Minister for workers and
leave them with the same number of holidays as provided
prior to the introduction of the May bank holiday.
Accordingly, this would reduce their entitlement to
concessionary days from three to two.
3. In recent times on the introduction of the last Monday
in October nationally as a bank holiday the precedent of
dealing with additional bank holidays within the Co-op
was established. The October bank holiday was applied
as an additional public holiday entitlement and the
workers entitlement to concessionary days remained
untouched. The May bank holiday must be treated in
similar fashion by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's current leave entitlements meet the
requirements of legislation. Staff are afforded 4 weeks
annual leave per annum. In addition they are given
leave on 5 public holidays and 6 church holy days giving
them a total of 11 day's leave in addition to the annual
leave entitlement.
2. Under the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 employees are
entitled to 9 days leave in respect of public holidays.
However, in accordance with Section 3 of the Schedule of
the Act "an employer may substitute for any public
holiday (other than Christmas Day or St. Patricks Day)
either-
"(a) the church holy day falling in the same year
immediately before the public holiday,
or
(b) the church holy day falling in the same year
immediately after the public holiday."
Ascension Thursday is the church holy day immediately
following the May public holiday. Accordingly, the
Society's practice of affording leave on that day
adequately meets the requirements of the Act.
3. The introduction of the May public holiday increased the
legal minimum public holiday entitlement to 9 days. The
Society's leave allocation exceeds that minimum. There
is no basis for requiring the Society to grant a further
day's leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully examined the submissions from both
parties, and the relevant sections of the Holidays (Employees)
Act, 1973. Substitution of a church holy day for a public holiday
is clearly covered by the Act. However, this does not mean that
when an additional public holiday is granted to workers it does
not give a Company the overall right to reduce the number of
church holy days previously granted.
The Court accordingly recommends that the workers herein concerned
be granted the May Day public holiday and implemented in
accordance with the terms of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973.
The Court further recommends that the parties enter into
negotiations on the overall question of the number of church holy
days to be granted in any year.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.