FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Public holiday entitlements for part-time staff
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with management in relation to a company decision to change the work pattern of 7 clerical/administrative staff who work on a part-time basis. The Union states that these employees work twenty hours over a four day period as follows: 8 hours Monday: 4 hours on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. When a public holiday falls on a Monday the claimants resume work on Tuesday and work the rest of the week as normal. This arrangement has been in place since Christmas, 1997.
The Union claims that management decided to change this pattern without any consultation. Where a public holiday falls on a Monday staff are now required to work an extra 4 hours over the rest of the week. The Union states that there was no agreement to this change.
Management claims that it had no option but to correct the anomaly for these part-time staff. It claims that these staff will now have to work 16 hours over the rest of the week where a public holiday falls on a Monday.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 26th September, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th September, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2000. The Court investigated the dispute on the 12th December, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The company is in breach of a custom and practice arrangement which has been in operation since Christmas, 1997.
2. The company took a unilateral decision to change the existing working arrangements without any discussion or consultation with staff.
3. Staff who do not comply with the new arrangements have been threatened with disciplinary action.
4. The existing working hours was agreed and benefited both sides. The union is seeking an immediate return to the status quo.
5. The employees concerned qualify for a full 8 hour day off under the terms of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In order to equalise standard arrangements these staff who currently only work 12 hours of a normal 20 hour week when a public holiday falls on a Monday, should work 16 hours to bring them into line with other part-time workers.
2. Management does not accept the Union's claim that this arrangement is an established "custom and practice" agreement.
3. Other part-time workers who operate 20 hours over a five day week (Monday - Friday) could place a counter claim as a result of this arrangement, as they work 16 hours over a week where a public holiday falls on a Monday.
4. The Company is not prepared to concede a situation that would lead to demands from other part-time employees for 20 hours pay for working 12 hours in the week of a public holiday, and also to follow-on claims from full-time employees.
5. The Company is willing to consider various options to ensure that this particular
group of part-time workers receive the correct level of remuneration in line with all other employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to all aspects of this case. The Court is of the view that the workers in this dispute, in the particular circumstances of this case, should not lose out as a result of a public holiday occurring in a particular week. Public Holidays are for the purpose of granting a benefit to employees and are not intended to disadvantage employees in any way.
Therefore, from an industrial relations stand point, the Court recommends that those claimants who are normally required to work an eight hour day on a Monday should receive the benefit of the public holiday by receiving the day off with their normal day's pay for that day i.e. eight hours pay. For the Court to recommend otherwise in these circumstances would be to the disadvantage of these particular employees because of the rostered duties they work.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st December, 2000______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.