FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for two days' extra annual leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the craft Analogue Agreement initially agreed in Dublin Corporation, craft workers there received, on a phased basis, 3 days' extra leave with such additional leave not to be affected by any legislative change to leave entitlements. Subsequently, similar agreements were reached by all other public sector employers and their craft workers. Trinity College Dublin concluded its agreement in late 1998. However, that agreement contains no reference to the then imminent Organisation of Working Time legislation which would increase annual leave entitlements to a minimum of 20 days.
The Union claims that the additional 3 days' leave under the Analogue Agreement were "privilege" days and that, under the Organisation of Working Time Act, the craft workers concerned in this dispute should, in addition to the 3 privilege days, receive an increase in annual leave from their entitlement of 18 days to 20 days. The College rejects the claim on the grounds that the 3 additional days were specifically designated as annual leave and, accordingly, as the staff concerned have more than 20 days' annual leave, the College is, therefore, fully compliant with the Organisation of Working Time legislation.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of August, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th of September, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 3 days' leave under the Analogue Agreement were "privilege" days and not annual leave. The craftsmen are entitled to them along with the entitlement under the Organisation of Working Time Act.
2. That the 3 days were to be treated as being other than annual leave is clear under the Analogue Agreement (non-pay elements) (b), where possible the additional days were to be taken at Christmas time, and under (k), where the travel time payment was to be excluded.
3. The additional leave granted to craftsmen under the Dublin Corporation agreement would "not alter in any way a craft person's entitlements to additional annual leave under EU Directives".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to the implementation of the Analogue Agreement, College craftsmen were entitled to 18 days' annual leave per annum, plus some 5 days' per annum privilege days known as "College Holidays" (most of which are taken between Christmas and the New Year each year). Under the Analogue Agreement, the annual leave of craftsmen was increased by one day from 1998; by a further day from 1999; and by one more day from 2000. This being the case, the annual leave entitlement of these men is, at present, 20 days per annum, which is in line with the minimum requirements of the Organisation of Working Time Act.
2. The Union's argument that the additional leave under the Analogue Agreement should be classified as privilege days is an attempt to gain increases in leave under both the Analogue Agreement and the Organisation of Working Time Act. The College has consistently rejected this approach. Furthermore, the additional leave granted to Local Authority craftsmen is classified as annual leave and not privilege days.
3. The Union has stated that additional leave granted recently to Dublin Corporation craftsmen had been classified as privilege days. However, College craftsmen have no relationship with Dublin Corporation craftsmen - the relationship is with Local Authority craftsmen.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties in this case the Court considers that the Union's interpretation of the 1997 Analogue Agreement for craft workers employed by Local Authorities and Health Boards is correct.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th October, 1999.______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.