FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH FERRIES - AND - SEAMEN'S UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Annual leave entitlements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the annual leave entitlements of three customer service operatives, formerly known as boatmen. Up to August 1998, the Company employed 14 boatmen who enjoyed 41 days' annual leave per year. A Labour Relations Commission (LRC) Agreement dated 28th of April, 1998, stated" Annual leave will be 41 days". A second LRC agreement dated 28th of August, 1998, states" The leave entitlement shall be 6 weeks p.a". The August 1998 agreement led to boatmen working 5 days per week whereas previously they had worked a 7-day week. The issue in dispute is that the Company's interpretation of the August agreement means that the boatmen now have 30 days' annual leave, i.e. 6 weeks x 5 days, whereas the Union maintains that the agreement should have said 41 days' leave as had the previous agreement in April, 1998.
The dispute was referred to the LRC and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of March, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 41 days' leave the Union is seeking is two days less than the crews on the ships enjoy. The 41 days includes the 9 Public Holidays the workers concerned have to work for no extra payment.
2. The workers concerned are treated differently to all other employees in Irish Ferries. They work on average 40 hours per week and receive 1/46th instead of 1/40th per hour for work done.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has continued the agreed method of applying annual leave. The new working arrangements (5-day weeks) are more advantageous to the workers concerned, yielding every weekend off.
2. The workers are paid 6 hours every week for early / late arrivals whether or not they work these hours. The Union has admitted that they rarely have to work the six hours.
3. The agreement of April, 1998, was superseded by the agreement of August, 1998, which stated that annual leave is six weeks.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is being asked to adjudicate on the issue of annual leave entitlements of three former boatmen. The Union is claiming that they are entitled to 41 days' annual leave; the Company maintain that they are entitled to 6 weeks (30 days), with one day deducted per rostered day taken (8 hours). There have been a number of changes in the duties and rosters of these workers over the years, which has now resulted in a conflict of views on the application of their annual leave entitlement.
The three former boatmen currently work 56 hours one week and 24 hours the second week, giving an average of 40 hours per week, with a liability to work up to 46 hours per week, depending on ship delays. They are paid 48 hours pay for this 46-hour liability.
The Court takes the view that their annual leave entitlement is 40 hours by 6, plus 6 hours by 6, giving a total of 276 hours per annum. It is difficult to express this entitlement in terms of weeks as their rostered weeks vary (56 hours one week and 24 hours the second week). However, if expressed in 8-hour days then the annual calculation of 276 hours will work out at 34.5 days per annum. If rostered to work longer days then clearly the number of days per annum will be reduced accordingly.
Therefore, the Court's interpretation of the annual leave entitlement for these specific former boatmen is 276 hours, and leave taken from that annual bank of holidays is calculated on the basis of "rostered time off". This recommended method of calculating annual leave entitlement does not alter the Company's right to ensure that holidays are taken in a specified minimum length of time.
On the issue of public holiday entitlements, the Court notes that an agreement was entered into some years ago, on the method of granting entitlement to public holidays; however, the Union indicate that a number of public holidays actually worked has increased since that agreement was entered into. The Court recommends that the Company must now review its arrangements and satisfy the Union that their statutory obligations under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, are being met in respect of each of the nine public holidays.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th April, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.