FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUN LAOGHAIRE INSTITUTE OF ART, DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Holidays
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim's is on behalf on 11 workers in the clerical/administrative grades, and it is that they are entitled to have 5 days' additional leave in lieu of working Church holidays. The Union is basing its claim on Clause 5 of a 1998 PCW Flexibility Agreement for regional technical colleges (RTCs) which is as follows:
" Where colleges require and staff work Church holidays it is agreed that an additional five (5) days annual leave be granted. This arrangement to apply to all staff, existing and new."
In January, 1997, discussions took place between Dun Laoghaire VEC and the Union on a number of proposals, one of which was " No leave on Holy days." Agreement was reached in February, 1997, and was to apply to staff appointed after the 1st of January, 1997. Part of the agreement provided for the conversion of Church holidays to 5 days' annual leave for existing staff who would be 'red circled'. On the 1st of April, 1997, staff transferred from Dun Laoghaire Vocational Education Committee (Dun Laoghaire VEC) to Dun Laoghaire Regional Technical College (Dun Laoghaire RTC), now known as the Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology (the Institute). It is the Institute's view that clause 5 of the PCW agreement was to promote flexibility and change in Institutes of Technology where staff were not at that time (May, 1998) obliged to work on Church holidays.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and then on to the National Forum, which in turn referred it back for a second conciliation conference on the 23rd of March, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of April, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 25th of April, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 5 of the PCW Agreement from 1998 is clear and unambiguous. It applies to all staff, existing and new and makes no reference to dates or that it would only apply to staff who, at that time, were not obliged to work on Church holidays.
2. Clause 5 supersedes the February,1997 agreement, and is applicable to the Institute as it is now an RTC.
3. The Institute requires staff to work on Church holidays so they are clearly entitled to additional leave.
4. The claim only applies to staff who are not currently benefiting from Clause 5, and to future staff, as set out in the PCW Agreement.
5. All other Institutes that were party to the Agreement give the 5 days' leave in lieu of Church holidays.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 5 of the PCW agreement was not intended to apply to Institutes of Technology where agreement had already been reached (February, 1997) on the issue of staff working on Church holidays.
2. Underpinning the May, 1998, agreement is clause 2(iii) A of Annex 1 of the PCW. This clause refers to the need for a contribution from the staff in the area of flexibility and change. Clause 5, as it applies in the Institute, is not such a contribution. It is not intended to confer further benefit on the staff.
3. It was clearly accepted by the parties that acceptance of the proposal to address a number of issues at national level was conditional on the status quo being maintained in relation to items already in place in Colleges.
RECOMMENDATION:
In its consideration of this case, the Court accepts that Clause 5 of the agreement concluded between the parties under the PCW is clear and unqualified in providing that all staff encompassed by its terms are to receive 5 days' leave in consideration of working on Church holidays. The staff in question voted on and accepted the agreement as written. In the absence of any expressed exclusions, their expectations from the provision in question is not unreasonable.
In these circumstances, the Court recommends that the 5 days in question be applied to the claimants in this case. The Court notes that new staff in this employment will derive benefit to which they would not otherwise have been entitled. In these circumstances, the Court further recommends that the parties should identify and agree additional flexibilities which can be conceded under clause 4 of the Agreement in return for the additional leave.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th May, 2000______________________
con/conDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.