FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Red-circling of annual leave for four engineering operatives based in Cork who moved from the CME Department to the Traffic Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Workers' claim that they should have maintained their previous annual leave entitlement on redeployment. 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 12th June, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th August, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers fully cooperated with the transfers arising from the Company's rationalisation.
2 The Company assured the Workers that their terms and conditions would remain unchanged.
3 The Workers are entitled to expect the Company to honour these assurances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company entered into an agreement in 2006.
2 This agreement clearly states that only rates of pay are red circled on redeployment.
3. Concession of this claim would inevitably lead to similar claims across the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The information supplied by the parties does not convincingly support the claims made by either side. In those circumstances the Court has considered the matter in the context of best practice in industry at present.
In that context the Court notes that the parties are in agreement that the additional annual leave at issue in this case applies only where an employee is contracted for four shift working in the Mechanical Engineers Department. Where either of these conditions is not fulfilled there is no entitlement to the additional annual leave.
Normal practice in industry is that where a mandatory condition on which an allowance is paid no longer applies entitlement to the allowance ceases. In this case the claimants no longer meet the requirements.
Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no basis for upholding the Unions claim and recommends accordingly.
The Court further recommends that in the unusual circumstances of this case the Claimants should, on an exceptional basis qualify for the additional annual leave in the leave year 2014. Thereafter they should transfer to the annual leave arrangements that apply in the departments to which they have been redeployed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
1st September, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.