FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MERCY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Increase In Annual Leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court is for three additional days annual leave for 4 Workers at the hospital. The Union believe that three extra days leave is necessary to bring them in line with their colleagues and counterparts. This follows a comparative exercise carried out with other hospitals. The Workers currently have 24 days annual leave from January to December. The Union sought to have the matter discussed at local level. Management offered one day in full and final settlement of the claim. At the Labour Relations Commission they offered a further two days with conditions attached including a weekend service on a Saturday morning. This was rejected by the Union.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th September, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The union seeks parity for the Workers with their counterparts in other hospitals where the annual leave entitlements are more favourable.
2 The Towards 2016 National Agreement sets down provisions for extensions of service only in circumstances where there is not an increase in working hours for staff.
3 There is a provision under the Towards 2016 Agreement for the concession of minor claims that do not have significant financial implications. This claim will not lead to a number of 'knock on' claims and is cost neutral as the workers concerned are not replaced when they take annual leave. Concession of this claim will not set any precedents going forward.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The review at national level on the standardisation of annual leave for health and social care professionals should not be disregarded by the Union. This local level claim is clearly in conflict with review at national level. By making this claim the Union is placing the Court in a position of making a judgement that could interfere with the national review now under way.
2 Clause 1.4 of the Towards 2016 National Agreement provides that no cost increasing claims by trade unions will be made for the period of that Agreement. The Company believes that on that basis the Union's claim is not valid.
3 Management feel that the offer made at the Conciliation Conference was positive and should be given further serious consideration by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made to the Court by the parties, and taking the overall situation into account, the Court recommends, in the unique circumstances applying in this case, that the Union's case be conceded on the basis of one extra day's annual leave in 2008 and two further days annual leave in 2009.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
12th December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.