FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL / DUBLIN FIRE BRIGADE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Standardisation of annual leave C-117501-11.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute, which arises from the proposed agreement on the standardisation of public service annual leave, concerns a difference over the actual amount of firefighters' annual leave. 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 7th December, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th December, 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The firefighters receive the legal minimum of 20 days annual leave.
2 The firefighters' three winter leave days are not recorded as annual leave.
3 The proposed standardisation of public service annual leave would, accordingly, increase the firefighters' annual leave.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The firefighters enjoy very generous annual leave and roster arrangements.
2 As the firefighters have an annual leave entitlement of 24 days, they are above the minimum annual leave entitlement as set out in the proposed agreement on the standardisation of public service annual leave.
3. Concession of this claim would have significant financial implications for the Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the parties and the extensive documentation which they provided in support of their respective positions. Both sides have placed emphasis on how the leave in issue was classified in various documents over many years. The City Council has placed reliance on documents in which the disputed leave is described as“annual leave”and the Unions have relied upon other documents in which it is merely described as“leave”, or“additional leave” and in which it appeared to be distinguished from annual leave.
In the Court’s view the classifications ascribed to this leave is unimportant. It is clearly annual leave because it is granted annually. Furthermore, additional holidays granted in respect of shift working are frequently referred to as additional annual leave. It is noteworthy that in Civil Service Arbitration Report 498, to which the Court was referred, the additional holidays granted to shift workers who were party to the claim before the Board were described in the recommendations of the Chairmen as“three extra days annual leave”.Consequently the Court is satisfied that for present purposes no assistance can be obtained from the fact that the three holidays in issue were variously described as additional leave or annual leave in the documents to which the Court was referred.
It is clear that the claimants in this case receive 24 days holidays annually in addition to holiday that are attributable to weekly hours worked in excess of 39 as part of their normal roster. The central question is whether or not three of those 24 days are attributable to, or in consideration for, the claimants’ liability to work shifts.
Having reviewed all of the documentation with which the Court was provided no clear answer to that question has emerged. There is no record in which the origin or purpose of the three days is clearly described one way or the other. Furthermore the City Council is unable to say with any degree of confidence why, or when, the disputed leave was introduced. On that point the Council think that it was introduced in 1970 in consideration of the hours then worked by the Fire Brigade. The Union believe that it was introduced in 1968 to bring the leave entitlement of Fire Fighters into line with that of another group of Municipal employees who had additional three days holidays because they worked shifts. However, the evidence relied upon by both sides is almost entirely anecdotal.
In the course of the hearing the Unions advanced the argument that, given the commonality of additional holidays for shift working, if the disputed days had not been regarded as in consideration of the requirement to work shifts, a claim for additional holidays would undoubtedly have been made in the intervening years. There is cogency in that argument although the City Council contends that the work pattern of Fire Fighters is specifically taken into account in their remuneration package. It can, however, reasonably be assumed that the three additional holidays were originally granted to Fire Fighters for some valid reason. As it seems clear that they were over and above the then standard leave allocation of similarly graded Council staff that reason must have related to the circumstances or conditions under which the work of Fire Fighters was performed.
The absence of any clear objective evidence in either direction makes it impossible for the Court to establish with certainty what the three day in issue were originally intended to cover. Nevertheless, having regard to all the circumstances of this case, and in the absence of any other explanation by the City Council, it seems more probable than not that the requirement to work shifts was a factor taken into account in the original concessions of the disputed additional leave.
The consequence of this finding of the Court is a matter for the parties to address.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th December, 2011______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.