FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH FERRIES - AND - SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Annual leave entitlement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute is the annual leave entitlement of five shore storemen. The Union claims that, following a 1993 agreement, the workers are entitled to 35 days annual leave plus a further 6 days in lieu of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). The Company contends that the claimants are not entitled to the additional 6 days leave which was inadvertently referred to in the 1993 agreement document. The issue was the subject of local discussions and of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th of December, 1998. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of January, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th of March, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following months of negotiations with Management and a proposal from the Labour Relations Commission in 1993 an agreement was accepted by staff in the catering stores. The agreement clearly states that the annual leave entitlement for the staff concerned is 35 days plus 6 days in lieu of the P.N.R..
2. As a result of the reduction in the working week, sea going staff received an additional 8 days leave in lieu of the P.N.R., in addition to the basic 35 days. The Company, however, has failed to honour its agreement with the shore based staff despite numerous meetings and a conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company honoured its commitment to implement the terms of the hours reduction clause in the P.N.R. by granting additional leave or by buying it out where it was not possible to reduce the physical working week. As the claimants did not work 40 hours per week the clause did not refer to them. Consequently they were not entitled to additional leave.
2. The claimants have 35 days annual leave which compares more than favourably with other shore based staff. Sea going staff have more leave because sea going conditions are different.
3. In 1993 (three years after the implementation of the P.N.R.) one base agreement document was amended and augmented for use with different departments, i.e. the catering stores. In error the reference to additional annual leave was not deleted. This cannot be used to justify the granting of additional leave to workers who did not fulfil the criteria at the time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is being asked now, in 1999, to acknowledge an agreement reached in 1991, which was never implemented. In 1991, the Company were introducing a reduction in hours of work, in line with the P.N.R., for sea going staff. These employees received extra annual leave in lieu of the reduction in the hours worked. As an agreement for shore based staff was being drawn up at the same time it appears that the provision with regard to the extra annual leave was inadvertently included in the agreement also.
The Court is of the view that Management had a responsibly to rectify the situation either at the time or since then, but they did not do so. It was unprofessional of the Company not to have corrected the record before now. However, their mistake does not warrant the payment of an extra six days of annual leave and, therefore, the Court rejects the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st March, 1999______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.