FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Increased Annual Leave
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Trinity College Dublin (TCD) and Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) in relation to a claim for additional annual leave for 14 Chief Technicians and 10 Senior Experimental Officers employed by the college. The Union is seeking to have the claim addressed under the minor claims provisions of the National Wage Agreement, Towards 2016.
Its position is that there are other staff members with less service who have greater annual leave entitlements and that the cost of the claim is negligible as colleagues cover for each other and no replacement staff would be needed.
Management's position is that the claim is cost increasing and would inevitably lead to knock on claims. It accepted that their is a disparity of annual leave entitlements amongst staff at the college but this occurrred during the local bargaining process.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 14th May, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd October, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The claimants are senior grades within the University, yet they have significantly less annual leave entitlements than lesser grades.
2 Given the numbers involved it is appropriate to process this claim through the minor claim provisions of Towards 2016.
3 There will be no repercussive claims or knock on effects as the claim applies only to this group of workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 This claim is cost increasing and is therefore precluded under national wage agreements.
2 Concession of this claim will have serious repercussions and knock on claims from employees with the same annual leave entitlements of the claimants in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the Claimant grades are a technical grade with management responsibilities. It is acknowledged that their current annual leave entitlements are out of line with analogous grades within this employment and by comparison to similar grades in other Universities.
Moreover, it is clear from the history of discussions and negotiations between the parties in relation to the claim that the employer has acknowledged the anomalous nature of the current position and has expressed a willingness to address the claim on its merits.
The Court is, however, of the view that Union’s claim for 29 days annual leave overstates the extent of the anomaly. In the Court’s opinion an adjustment to 24 days would bring the Claimants into line with the appropriate level of leave having regard to their grade and range of responsibilities. The Court is further satisfied that an adjustment to that level is capable of being dealt with within the minor claims exception under the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the basic annual leave entitlements of the Claimants be adjusted to 24 days per year with effect from the current leave year.
This recommendation is based on the particular circumstances pertaining to the grades in question within this employment. It is not intended too have any wider application to other grades or to any other employment within the university sector or otherwise. Accordingly this recommendation should not be quoted or relied upon in support of any claim for any other group or category of staff in this or any other employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th November,2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.