FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROCHES STORES (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Study leave and payment of a subsidy towards the completion of a B.B.S. course run by I.C.T.U., I.B.E.C. and UCD.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute is a claim by the Union on behalf of one of its members for paid study leave and a financial contribution towards the cost of a Bachelor of Business Studies course run by U.C.D., I.C.T.U. and I.B.E.C. The worker concerned has been employed by the Company as a sales assistant since December, 1979. He is also a staff representative for the past six years. He commenced the four year course, by distance education, in 1999.
The claim was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 13th of October, 1999 and on the 16th of January, 2001. No agreement could be reached. The Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation, but the Company refused to attend. The Union then referred the issue to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute in Galway on the 30th of January, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant has almost completed his third year of the course and has borne the cost and inconvenience on his own to date. Even if his claim is successful, the Company has saved money since the beginning of the course.
2. The claimant must attend UCD for 24 days per year. The Company has permitted him to alternate his day off to accommodate 12 of the days, but he is seeking an additional 12 days study leave per year to cover the remainder.
3. Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (P.P.F.) commit the social partners to develop a lifelong learning culture in the workplace and state that employee representatives should be accommodated.
4. The Union is aware of other employers who contribute towards the cost of this course (and similar ones) and who facilitate work release for their employee representatives.
5. Concession of the Union’s claim should be seen as an investment rather than as a cost to the Company. The claimant will be more knowledgeable and will be an asset to the Company, particularly in his role as employee representative.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The specified course does not come within the ambit of the Company’s Education Policy. The course is not directly work-related, it is not approved by the General Manager and it interferes with the attendance and performance of duties on the two busiest days of the week.
2. The claimant is employed as a sales assistant and the Company does not require sales assistants to be educated to primary degree level in industrial relations. Staff representatives are given paid time off to attend shop steward training courses.
3. The Company is not obliged by either Partnership 2000 or the P.P.F. to fund or support the specified course. Educational policies are not part of agreed terms and conditions of employment. They are exclusively determined by management and must remain the Company’s prerogative.
4. The claim is a cost increasing claim and is debarred by the P.P.F. Concession of the claim would have serious implications for the Company, both financially and operationally, and would force it to review its existing education policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all aspects of this claim. Given his very long service with the company; his position as employee representative; the commitment he has shown to his studies and his progress to date, the Court recommends that the Company should contribute towards the final year of his degree course, in the manner requested by the Union (i.e. study leave and a contribution to the cost of the course).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th February, 2002______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.