FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST JAMES' HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Restoration of Additional Annual Leave Days to Shift Porters
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 24 April 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 1 June 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. SIPTU members argue that they took on the additional duties on the basis that they would be given the additional annual leave days on an ongoing basis.
2. Staff have been getting these leave days in the form of TOIL for the last 10 years.
3. There was no agreement to discontinue this arrangement with the porters or their representative body in 2014.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer submits that the agreement concluded in 2004 is clear that the two annual leave days only applied to the 'current leave year'.
2. The agreement applied to all Porter staff participating in the new arrangement but the Night Porters only received this benefit for the 2003/2004 annual leave year and have not received it since that time.
3.The Employer submits thatthe leave which had been taken as time off in lieu does not meet the definition of time off in lieu as set out in the Hospital policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute relates to shift porters working in St James Hospital. In 2004, a local agreement was reached between hospital and management in relation to portering staff taking on ambulance driving duties within the hospital grounds during late shifts and weekends. This was to facilitate the transfer of patients both live and deceased at off peak times without the need for an external service provider. It is the hospitals contention that the additional two days annual leave granted was a one-off for the leave year 2004. It is the Union’s contention that staff had received the leave from 2004 up to 2014 when it was unilaterally stopped by management. It is the Union’s contention that the staff had received same for 10 years and are therefore entitled to it going forward.
Union’s position
Staff have been receiving the extra two days as TOIL since 2004 and even if the Employer is correct that it should have only been given for the year 2004 it has been signed off every year by management thus creating a custom and practice. Staff that commenced work since 2004, have been granted the leave and this supports the Union’s contention that it was not just a one-off. The Union as part of their submission submitted a list of 17 staff who they believe were covered by the arrangement and are entitled to the additional two days annual leave.
Employer’s position.
The Employer is clear that the two days should have been given as annual leave for the 2004 annual leave year only. There was no agreement for it to be taken as TOIL. In support of this contention the Employer submitted a copy of an unsigned letter addressed to a Union Official dated 28thJanuary 2004 which in the last bullet point states “management is prepared to allow 2 extra days annual leave in the current leave year…”.
It is the Employer’s position that they will not seek to recoup the TOIL granted in error.
The Court having read the submissions and listened carefully to the oral submissions on the day recommends that the 17 workers named in the SIPTU submission be granted two days leave on a once off basis, to be taken in the current leave year, in full and final settlement of this claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
11 June 2018______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.