FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUI MAYNOOTH - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Annual leave and travel time.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns one worker who is seeking parity with craft workers at University College Dublin in respect of holidays and travel time. The College rejected the claim. The worker is the only electrician employed by the College. In 1992, following a claim by S.I.P.T.U., representing craftspersons and general operatives in the University, for a travel time payment in line with that paid to similar staff in University College Dublin, the University reached an agreement with the Union on a buy-out of the claim, based on a once-off payment to each staff member involved. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th of February, 2001 under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th June 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. Travelling time of one hour per day is paid to electricians in University College Dublin and forms part of their basic earnings and is included in their holiday pay. 2. Maynooth is part of NUI and asserts that it has wage parity with University College Dublin, therefore, it must also apply other conditions which are related to pay. 3. When the College is closed at Christmas and Easter, the worker is required to take his annual leave; other workers at the college are not expected to take annual leave at this time, they are given this as time off with pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The worker is currently in receipt of 20 days annual leave. This is in line with the leave entitlement of general operatives and craftsmen generally in the University. 2. Concession to this claim would be cost increasing, particularly in terms of the repercussive effects that concession would have in respect of general operatives and craftspersons generally in the University. 3. The offer of an additional three days annual leave still stands on the proviso that this can be achieved without additional cost to the University.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties at the hearing of the case. The Court notes the terms of the June 2000 agreement with the TEEU, which clearly states that no claim can be made pursuant to the "Analogue Agreement". Similarly, the Court notes that the college accepts that pay parity exists between Maynooth and UCD. Consequently, the Court recommends that the claim for payment of the travelling allowance should be conceded, on a personal basis to the comparable NUIM employee, to whom the 1992 travelling time agreement does not apply.
In relation to the claim for extra annual leave, the Court notes the offer made by the college to increase annual leave by 3 days. The Court recommends that this offer should be accepted in full and final settlement of all claims for additional paid time off.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th, June, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.