FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALLAGHER (DUBLIN) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Christmas working arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is the market leader in the Irish tobacco industry and employs a staff of 243, of whom 200 are based at the Company's Tallaght plant. The dispute concerns a claim, on behalf of 26 warehouse operatives, for similar working arrangements as applied to production workers, in respect of annual leave on the 29th and 30th December, 1999, both of which were normal working days. Production workers were permitted to accumulate time, at a basic rate, in the run-up to Christmas thereby enabling them to take two days' leave on the days in question. A similar arrangement was not possible in the warehouse as, the Company states, it was essential to make deliveries on those days. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, arising from which the Company proposed roster changes which would have the effect of allowing between 13 and 19 of the warehouse workers the time off. This was rejected by the warehouse staff, who were seeking a payment of £200 each for working the days in question. Agreement was not reached between the parties and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 13 March, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 10th October, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The warehouse workers believed themselves to be excluded from discussion that took place between the Company and production staff. When they sought similar arrangements in the warehouse, proposals issued from the Company which were rejected because they would have created significant disadvantages for the workers concerned, including having to work a pre-Christmas week-end and having to take leave when other family members were back at work or at school.
2. Given the Company's argument that departmental cover was required, and it being the Millennium year, an alternative arrangement should have applied, such as a compensatory payment of, perhaps, £200.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Extra payment cannot be made to workers for working on normal working days. Such payment would be unjustified in current circumstances, and an unacceptable precedent for the future. Similar payments have not been claimed or conceded in the vast majority of Irish businesses. Both of the Company's main competitors were open for business on the 2 days in question, without the need for extra payments.
2. The warehouse staff constituted only 18% of all staff working on the 29th and 30th December, 1999.
3. Normal holiday rules applied in respect of all workers taking holidays on the days in question.
4. The Company did its best to accommodate the aspiration for time off amongst the warehouse staff, within the confines of its requirement to service its customers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, does not recommend concession of the Union claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th October, 2000______________________
mk/mkChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.