FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK & FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY OF IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Failure To Grant Marriage Leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court is for an additional four days marriage leave to be granted to the Worker. The Worker has been employed by the Bank since 1973. In 1977 the Bank established a new premises to which a number of staff including the Worker concerned, were asked to move to. As part of the settlement reached between the Union and Bank for the move, three extra days leave were awarded to staff for the full period of their transfer to the new premises. The Union claim that this additional leave is classed as special leave. The Bank argues that it is annual leave. The Bank operates a procedure that in the year of marriage up to five additional annual leave days will be granted to a worker subject to their total of annual leave and marriage leave not exceeding 26 days in the year of marriage. The Bank's position is that they granted the worker one days marriage leave which brought her leave to 26 days for the year. The Union claim the worker is entitled to four days marriage leave as her current annual leave entitlement is 22 days and the three days received for the move should not be considered annual leave.
On the 22nd June, 2007 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The three extra days which are personal to the holder from the transfer to the new premises are still in operation as the worker continues to work there. The marriage leave entitlement of five days paid leave at the time of marriage should be allowed for the worker and should not include the three days special leave for transfer.
2 The Bank refer to Labour Court Recommendation No. 11561 which was referred by the Union representing Clerical Grades but not the grade of the worker concerned. It is the Union's argument that LCR 11561 has no bearing on its members as this is a separate department.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Bank operates its procedures regarding marriage leave consistently and on the same basis as the Civil Service. In granting the worker one day's marriage leave, the Bank was following those established procedures. The worker has enjoyed three additional days annual leave since moving to the new premises and holds that leave as per the 1977 Agreement. That agreement specifically gave three days extra annual leave subject to certain conditions.
2 The Bank has consulted with IBEC and the Department of Finance regarding the application of its procedure concerning marriage leave and they have confirmed it is correct.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court concerns a claim by one employee that she was not afforded her full entitlement to Marriage Leave, in accordance with the Bank’s policy on such leave, following her marriage in July 2006.
Management explained that its policy on Marriage Leave is in line with the Civil Service Circular 7/82, General Council Report No 1338 and 1449 which allows up to 5 days special leave with pay on the occasion of marriage, provided the amount of such leave together with the officer's annual leave allowance in the leave year in which the marriage takes place does not exceed a total of 26 days.
Management stated that as the employee concerned has an entitlement to 25 days annual leave, the only Marriage Leave available to her was one day and accordingly she received one day’s Marriage Leave in 2006.
The Union on the other hand hold the view that the employee has 22 days annual leave plus 3 special days, granted to her in 1977 as a result of an agreement relating to the transfer of staff from Foster Place to Sandyford which states:
- “Three extra days’ annual leave per annum to existing staff transferred to Sandyford now and in the future for the full period of their transfer.”
Therefore, the Court upholds the Bank's position and dismisses the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st October, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.