FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Annual Leave
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by 144 Technical Staff that their annual leave entitlements be increased to 24 days, retrospetive to 1999 when this matter was first raised.
This 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 8th July 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th September 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The annual leave allowance of Technical Staff is significantly out of line with that of other grades in the College.The average annual leave entitlement of Technical Staff is 20 days per annum while other comparable grades enjoy 24 days annual leave per annum.
2. This is not a cost-increasing claim as Technical Staff cover for each other while on leave and no replacement staff is needed. If this claim was conceeded the Union would be willing to have the cost element reviewed after a three-year period.
3.On 5th November 2007, the Labour Court recommended concession of a similar claim in LCR19048.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a cost-increasing claim and, as such, is precluded under the terms of 'Towards 2016'.
2. Concession of this claim would lead to knock-on claims by other staff throughout the third level sector.
3.In LCR19048, the Labour Court categorically stated that its recommendation in that particular case was not intended to have any wider application to other grades within the university sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought an increase in annual leave arrangements on behalf of the following grades:
-Technical Officers,
-Senior Technical Officers,
-Chief Technical Officer,
-Experimental Officer.
The Union stated that the annual leave arrangement for these grades was out of line and it sought to restore a differential they previously held. It stated that the claim was first tabled in 1999; however, the College had refused to concede the claim.
Management rejected the claim stating that the leave arrangements of the claimants’ involved were comparable with similar grades in other Universities and held the view that concession of the claim would inevitably lead to further knock-on claims.
The Court notes that two senior managerial grades above the claimants’ grade received an increase in annual leave following a Labour Court hearing,c.f.Recommendation No 19048. This recommendation stated:
- “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.”
- “This recommendation is based on the particular circumstances pertaining to the grades in question within this employment. It is not intended to 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
Caroline Jenkinson
30th September, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.