FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK CORPORATION (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning privilege days.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1997, the Union's claim that privilege days (24th, 29th and 30th December) enjoyed by the officer grade should be applied to all staff was rejected by the Labour Court. Subsequently, however, the Corporation conceded the claim and granted the three days to all workers. For many years traffic wardens employed by the Corporation received a day off in lieu for working Christmas Eve. This arrangement, applicable in the Traffic Warden Section, was unique to that area. The traffic wardens received this day in addition to the three days. At Christmas 1998, the Corporation insisted that the traffic wardens take the day off in lieu for Christmas Eve as a privilege day. The Union rejected the Corporation's stance on this issue claiming that it breached a long standing agreement. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference held on the 6th of October, 1999. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 14th of October, 1999. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 9th of February, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The additional day was added to traffic wardens' annual leave and this has been the practice since 1985. The Union is extremely concerned that the Corporation has interfered with the existing agreed terms and conditions of these workers without any form of prior notification or consultation.
2. The wardens have enjoyed an additional day's leave as a result of working Christmas Eve for a considerable period of time. This condition of employment was there as a result of negotiations by the Union. The unilateral decision by the Corporation to suspend this day's leave is a clear breach of what was agreed, and in the Union's view is a situation that cannot be sustained.
3. As a result of the Corporation's decision, the workers have lost out on two days' annual leave, one for 1998 and one for 1999, as the Corporation have again granted 3 privilege days for 1999. There is no guarantee that the privilege days will be granted for 2000 as the allocation of such days is made on a year to year basis and are at the discretion of the City Manager and can be withdrawn at any stage. The ability to withdraw days outside of the privilege days is not at Management's discretion, any attempt to do so without agreement by this Union has to be seen as an extremely worrying development. All the Union is asking is that the Corporation would abide by its existing agreements with its members. It would be extremely worrying precedent if Limerick Corporation were allowed to alter or suspend Union/Management agreements without the approval of workers as is the case in this dispute.
4. By its actions, Limerick Corporation has broken a fundamental principle of Industrial Relations. The formal procedures of Third Party intervention are supposed to be there for both parties to use in the event of a dispute. The Corporation is not entitled to make changes to agreements without the express agreement of the Union. The Corporation was duty bound to take the matter through agreed procedures first before implementing changes to existing terms and conditions.
5. The Union requests that the Court uphold the principles of good Industrial Relations by recommending that the Corporation restore the workers' agreed conditions of employment. Limerick Corporation cannot be allowed to ignore existing commitments and agreements. To do so would seriously damage the credibility of having agreements at all.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In December, 1997, as a gesture of goodwill, the Corporation decided to concede 3 privilege days to outdoor staff. This concession was made in the hope that the granting of the privilege days would allow industrial relations (historically very difficult) to move forward in 1998. This did not happen and a subsequent Labour Relations Commission Advisory Service Report recommended that "Corporation Management continue to manage industrial relations difficulties in a more appropriate way in the future and refrain from "cheque book" industrial relations. The report also recommended "that both sides ensure that only substantive issue are raised and that spurious issues are ignored". It is against this background that the issue must be considered. The concession of the privilege days to the outdoor staff was part of the culture of the past.
2. The Union argues that the day at issue is not, in fact, a privilege day. However, at a meeting on the 29th of January, 1993, it was confirmed that the Union accepted the day off in lieu is discretionary, which is the position with privilege days.
3. The Union now claims the "restoration of a differential" for one group of workers with regard to privilege days. In LCR 15505, the Union previously in claiming 3 privilege days for outdoor staff argued that all staff are entitled to be treated equally. The effect of a concession of the Union's current claim would be to re-establish an inequity in relation to privilege days. If the claim is conceded the effect would be that Traffic Wardens would be entitled to 2 days off in lieu for working on the 24th of December. This could not be justified.
4. Concession of the claim would lead to serious repercussive consequences from other groups of workers for a "restoration of their differential" or on the basis of "equality". It could also lead to other staff who work on Christmas Eve seeking 2 days' compensation in lieu of such work. The cost implications are huge.
5. The Union claims that Traffic Wardens were paid in respect of a fourth privilege day in 1997. The Corporation accepts that an error occurred in this regard due to an oversight caused mainly by the proximity to Christmas of the decision to grant privilege days to outdoor staff in 1997. The fourth day was not granted in 1998 or 1999, and Management does not accept that a "once-off" payment in error justifies the Union's case in this regard.
6. The three privilege days were granted to outdoor staff by Management in respect of Christmas 1997, Christmas 1998 and Christmas 1999. No commitment has been given in relation to future years, but it would appear that the Union wishes to copper fasten the issue of privilege days into the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties. The Court is satisfied that the existing holiday applicable to the claimants for working Christmas Eve, has not been removed as claimed. Management confirmed that this would continue to exist if a situation arose in any year that the privilege days granted in 1997 were not granted.
The Court is satisfied that it was Management's intention to provide 3 specific privilege days, 24th, 29th and 30th of December, one of which the claimants already enjoyed and will continue to have in the future.
The Court therefore, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
2nd March, 2000.______________________
TOD/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.