FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CROWN EQUIPMENT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY AMICUS AEEU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR9355/02/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment in 1969. His employment ended in October, 2002. The Union claims that he has an outstanding entitlement to six months holiday accrual dating back to his early service in the Company. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 31st October, 2003 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
"Based on the case of the worker I am satisfied that there is no outstanding entitlement. It is agreed that the case of the worker is a test case and therefore follows that I find that there is no outstanding holiday entitlement for other claimants outside of the formula used in the Company. I recommend that the Company's clarification of the holiday formula and the terms as set out in the conclusions above be accepted in settlement of this claim.
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation)
On the 19th November, 2003 the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Galway on the 18th February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the claimant's first holiday year(January, 1969 to June, 1969) he received no holidays. In the second holiday year(July, 1969 to June, 1970) he received 5 or 6 days.The claimant did not receive a full year's entitlement until his third holiday year (July, 1970 to June 1971).
2. The Company Union agreement of 1970 sets out the eligibility period for annual holidays as 1st July of the preceding year through to 30th June of the year of annual holidays. This supports the Union argument that the holiday year and the accrual year were sequential. There is no mention of any carry forward as would be expected if such an arrangement existed.
3. The claimant's holiday pay was always calculated on an annual sequential basis and he has an entitlement to a further 10 days holiday pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union claims that the issue arose as a result of a change in the original holiday schedule, it has not established what this change was or when it occurred. The Union has not established how such a change would have impacted on holiday entitlement.
2. The Company has reviewed the holiday schedule from the period 1996 to 2001 inclusive. It has established that there has been no change in the original holiday schedule as claimed by the Union.
3. A review of the claimant's holiday position for the year in which he left the Company demonstrates that he either availed of or was paid on his cessation of employment for all and any holiday entitlement due to him.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's conclusions are correct and that the 10 days leave identified by her represent the deferred accrual at issue in this case.
Accordingly the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th March,2004______________________
TODChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.