FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Annual leave
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a claim on behalf of its members employed on day work for an increase in annual leave as provided for in the Working Time Act. At present, day staff are entitled to 19 days' annual leave with one service day after five years, two service days after ten years, and three service days after fifteen years' service.
Management are insisting on inclusion of service days to satisfy the requirements of the Act and, accordingly, have rejected the claims.
The Union does not accept that service days should be included to satisfy the requirements of the Working Time Act.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 1st of February, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of February, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of April, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an increase in annual leave for day shift workers from nineteen days to twenty days as provided for under the terms of the Working Time Act.
2. The Company should not include "service days" when calculating annual leave entitlements.
3. Service days have to be earned by the accrual of service in the Company, and form part and parcel of the conditions of employment negotiated and agreed with the Company over the years.
4. The trend throughout Europe is for improvements in annual leave entitlements. It is important that annual leave be at the maximum given the onerous nature of the working conditions at the plant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The custom and practice in the Company has been to meet the statutory requirements by moving service days to annual leave days. This happened in 1979 and 1983.
2. There would be knock-on claims if this issue was conceded.
3. Annual leave in the Company has been ahead of industry standards, and a Company should not be penalised when legislation or industrial relations practice increases the floor for less progressive employments.
4. The claim is a cost-increasing one and is, therefore, precluded under the terms of the National Programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties to this dispute.
The Court does not accept that improvements in the Statutory entitlement to annual leave can provide a basis for a claim for additional leave for those already at or above the Statutory provision.
However, in the present case there is a long history of providing additional service-related leave above the minimum entitlements. It is noted that two such days were provided as part of a restructuring agreement in 1983. The Court would not consider it appropriate to subsume either of those days into the standard annual leave entitlement of the workers concerned.
In line with previous practice, the Court recommends that the service day not related to the restructuring agreement should be subsumed into the standard annual leave entitlement. However, having regard to the length of service of the workers concerned, and the overall allocation of leave to which day workers are entitled relative to shift workers, the Court recommends that an additional day of service leave be conceded to those with 20 or more years service.
This recommendation is to be regarded as specific to the workers associated with the present claim. It is made on the understanding that it will not be quoted or used as a precedent to support a claim for additional leave for any other group or category within the employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th May, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.