Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95684 Case Number: AD9613 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DONNELLY MIRRORS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST335/95.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the views of the parties as
expressed in the oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the Management acted reasonably in the
posting of information and the manner in which they dealt with
applications for leave.
Given all the circumstances the Court rejects the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and upholds the appeal by the
Employer.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95684 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1396
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DONNELLY MIRRORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST335/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which was established in Naas in 1968, is a
subsidiary of a United States Corporation. It manufactures
interior rear vision products for the automotive industry
worldwide and employs over 340 workers.
The dispute arises from the implementation of the
Christmas/New Year annual leave schedule for 1993/94. Seven
out of nine night shift workers who applied for service leave
for Monday, 3rd January, 1994 were granted leave. The
remaining two workers claim that, although they were among
the first to notify their Supervisor of their intent to take
service leave, they were later instructed to report for duty
under threat of disciplinary action. They subsequently
worked "under protest". The Company claims that priority is
given to those who apply first and that the two workers were
not among the first seven to apply for leave.
The Union then claimed an additional day's pay or paid leave
for the workers as overtime worked on Public Holidays is paid
at treble time, as per the Company/Union agreement. The
workers had been paid at the basic rate with one day's leave
to be taken at a later date. The Company rejected the claim
and the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner. His
recommendation issued on 26th October, 1995 as follows:-
"I recommend that the Company without prejudice or
precedent, grants to the two claimants, one day's leave
between now and Christmas to be taken upon application,
at the absolute discretion of the Management in full and
final settlement of their respective claims in this
matter."
The Company appealed the recommendation on 30th November,
1995 to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 29th January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The New Year's Day Public Holiday was designated by
Ministerial order as Monday, 3rd January, 1994. This
was confirmed by Management's Christmas leave schedule
which issued on the 1st of December, 1993.
2. A consensus was sought from amongst the night shift
workers as to their willingness to change the designated
New Year's Day holiday to Friday the 31st December,
1993. It was agreed that some workers would require to
take leave on the 3rd of January due to prior familial
arrangements. It was understood that working on the 3rd
of January was totally voluntary.
3. The two workers concerned immediately notified their
supervisor of their leave requirements and he was
initially agreeable. However, within two hours another
Manager demanded that they work, under pain of sanction.
The workers believe that they were victimised because
of past statements regarding an industrial issue.
4. The Company/Union agreement states that overtime worked
on Public Holidays is paid at treble time, therefore the
workers are entitled to either one additional day's pay
or paid leave. This was recommended by the Rights
Commissioner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Christmas/New Year leave schedule, which was
circulated to the Union for agreement on the 1st of
December, 1993, stated that Friday, 31st December, 1993
was to be substituted for Monday, 3rd January, 1994 as
the New Year's Day Public Holiday for the permanent
night shift. Workers were to commence work at 11.00p.m.
on Monday, 3rd January, 1994.
2. Company policy states that where a number of
applications for leave are received for a particular day
priority is given to those who apply earliest. From a
workforce of 47 available staff it was possible to grant
leave to 14% of them - a total of 7 persons. The
workers concerned were not among the first seven to
apply. There is no question of victimisation taking
place.
3. Working arrangements for Monday, 3rd January, 1994 were
arrived at in accordance with Statute, and by agreement
with the Union, in accordance with long established
practice. It is critical that the meaning and spirit of
the agreement be upheld at all times. There is no
justification for paying the workers the Public Holiday
overtime rate.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered the views of the parties as
expressed in the oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the Management acted reasonably in the
posting of information and the manner in which they dealt with
applications for leave.
Given all the circumstances the Court rejects the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and upholds the appeal by the
Employer.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th March, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman