FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH FERRIES - AND - SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Retention of leave entitlements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 8 Union members who in April - June, 1999, transferred from the Company's conventional ferries to the new DublinSwift service (there are also 4 SIPTU members in this category of worker). The 8 workers are claiming their annual leave entitlement which they held in their previous vessel and position - a total of 43 days' holiday per year - and the Union maintains that the workers only receive 14 days' leave at present. The Company's view is that the leave is 14 rostered periods, giving 28 days' leave. The Company has offered to buy out the reduction in leave at 1.75 times the loss but the Union was not agreeable to this.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of January, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of March, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. From the outset, the Company stated that all crew working on the Jonathan Swift would be on the same leave from the Captain down to the lowest rank. However, officers on the ship have greater annual leave than the workers concerned.
2. The workers were given an undertaking when they transferred that they would retain their original annual leave.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned transferred on a voluntary basis. New terms and conditions were negotiated as work practices on board are very different to the normal ferries. All staff who transferred had the opportunity within the first 6 months to return to their previous positions but none of the workers concerned did so.
2. The Court has dealt with the issue of annual leave on the DublinSwift before in DWT0135 and found in favour of the Company.
3. The Company made many attempts to reach agreement of a buy-out formula of 1.75 times the loss.
4. If the Union's claim were conceded, repercussive claims would be crippling for the service and could not be sustained.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that there was never any formal concluded agreement between the parties on the arrangements for annual leave which should apply to those transferring from conventional ferries. Equally, there was never an agreement that those transferring would retain their previous leave entitlements while benefiting from the other improvements in conditions associated with the transfer to the new ferry.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved by the Union accepting that the annual leave entitlement should be 14 roster periods per year (which in accordance with its determination in case DWT0135, the Court accepts is the equivalent of 28 days under the old arrangements). The Company should, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, and on the understanding that it will not be used or quoted as a precedent in the future, buy out the difference relative to the old arrangements at a rate of 3.5 times the annual loss.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th April, 2002______________________
CON/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.