FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Christmas leave allocation in line with 1997 General Operative (GO) Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 28 workers employed as Hostel Attendant and Project Workers in Dublin City Council. Hostels operate on a 24/7 basis all year round. In 1997 the Council concluded a wide-ranging restructuring agreement. One part of the agreement related to Christmas leave; where Christmas leave could not be taken, as in the case of Hostels, staff could take the leave (3 days) as time-in-lieu at a later date. At the time the standard working day for GOs was 8 hours so the 3 days' leave equated to 24 hours.
In 2005, following further restructuring, the working day/shift of the workers concerned changed from 8 hours to 12 hours. In 2008 it came to light that the Hostel Staff had not received benefit of the 3 days' leave-in-lieu from 1997 - 2007. The Council agreed to grant the workers 24 hours (3 x 8 hours) in monetary compensation for each year involved. However, the Unions made a claim that from 2005 onwards the leave should have been 36 hours (3 x 12 hours) due to the change in rosters from 8 hours to 12 hours.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th May, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th August, 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1997 clearly states that3 daysis the entitlement for staff working over the Christmas period and that they would be afforded the time off subsequently. Since 2005 the staff concerned have worked 12 hour shifts. As such the Council should honour the 1997 agreement and grant them 36 hours time-in-lieu for working the Christmas period. Repaying staff with 24 hours for 36 hours worked is unfair.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1997 agreement does not specify the number of days that are to be given to facilitate the closure of depots bit in practice it has been 3 days/24 hours. At present GOs working the Christmas period receive 24 hours time-in-lieu. The Hostels' staff receive exactly the same amount of time off i.e. 24 hours. Conceding the claim would lead to a situation where the majority of GOs would be treated less favourably than the Hostel staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this dispute. Between 1997 and 2005 Hostel staff worked eight hour shifts on a five over seven basis. During that time they were entitled to and received the equivalent of three days or twenty-four hours closure leave at Christmas time each year. In 2005 Hostel staff agreed to transfer to twelve-hour shifts, rostered over an eighty-four hour fortnight. All holiday and leave entitlements were converted to their hourly equivalents.
Accordingly this group's annual leave entitlement of 21 days was converted to 168 hours leave to reflect the changed nature of their shift patterns. Through an oversight, their entitlement to three days closure leave at Christmas was not carried forward, an error that was not discovered until 2008. At that time management offered to convert the three days into 24 hours additional leave in the same manner as all other leave had been converted. The Union contended that this short changed the staff as their shifts were now of twelve hours duration and three days leave now amounted to 36 hours and should be so calculated.
The Court is of the view that had the matter been discussed in 2005 when all leave was being converted to hours to reflect and accommodate the revised work patterns of Hostel staff it is most likely that the three days Christmas closure leave would have been so converted also. Had it been so converted and applied the staff involved in this claim would have suffered no reduction in their terms and conditions of employment as was the intention of the conversion arrangements. To now seek to increase the Christmas closure leave entitlement to 36 hours would be to improve the terms and conditions of this group over and above what they were at the time of the conversion to 12 hour shifts. This, in the Court’s view, would need to be prosecuted as a claim for an improvement in terms and conditions of employment in its own right that would be contrary to the provisions of the Public Service Agreement and the thrust of the 2005 conversion agreement.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Council’s offer of 24 hours' leave should be accepted in full and final settlement of this matter as it is fair, reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances and amounts to a continuation of the terms and conditions of employment in place at the time of the conversion to 12 hour shifts.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
10th August, 2011______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.