FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - SIPTU/IMPACT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Parity with Grade IV workers regarding Leave Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Unions' claim for additional annual leave on behalf of five Day Project Workers (DPW) employed by Dublin City Council. It is the Union's position that the Workers are analogous to Grade IV workers in the Council and accordingly should be entitled to the same amount of annual leave. The Union is seeking an increase of four days annual leave on behalf of the Workers in this case. It is the Council's position that the DPW role is aligned to Grade IV for salary purposes only, and maintains there is no additional annual leave entitlements owing to the Workers.
The 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 31st January, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th March, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Day Project Workers are analogous to Grade IV workers and should receive the same annual leave entitlements.
2. The Union is of the view that the Workers cannot be analogous solely for pay purposes.
3. The Union maintains that this is a rate for the job and cannot be considered a cost-increasing claim. Accordingly it should be conceded by the Council.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Workers signed their contracts of employment fully aware of their annual leave entitlements.
2. The Workers received the correct level of annual leave for a period in excess of five years prior to this claim being lodged.
3. The Union's claim is cost-increasing and as such is precluded under the terms of the current Public Service Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds as follows: -
The annual leave entitlement applicable to these posts has been in issue since the contracts of employment were signed in 2007. However the Workers involved did not pursue the matter between that date and the commencement of the claim currently before the Court some five years later. In the interim they did pursue a number of claims through the LRC and the Labour Court relating to the terms of their appointment to the posts. Accordingly it is arguable that the Workers concerned acquiesced in the leave provisions set out in the contracts of employment they were offered and signed on taking up appointment.
On the other hand it is common case that the general practice in Dublin City Council is that, other than hours of work, conditions of employment, including annual leave entitlements for all staff, are determined by the grade to which one is assigned. Accordingly it is equally arguable that this group of Workers should be treated no less favourably with respect to annual leave entitlements than any other comparably graded group of workers employed by the City Council.
However the circumstances in which this case comes before the Court complicates matters to the extent that it must now be viewed as a cost increasing claim that the parties have agreed not to pursue in the lifetime of the Haddington Road Agreement.
Accordingly the Court finds that it cannot, at this time, express a view on the merit of a claim that cannot be processed under the terms of that Agreement and recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th April 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.