FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : INLAND FISHERIES IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL MC GRATH, IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Office Clothing Agreement
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 21st February, 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st March, 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking to have implemented a long-standing clothing agreement.
2. The Union is seeking a buyout of the benefit.
3. The Union is seeking an additional payment representing compensation for the loss of the benefit from 2009 to date.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The arrangement by which administrative staff could volunteer for a uniform ceased with the amalgamation of the Central Fisheries Board with Regional Fisheries Boards in 2010.
2. Currently, administration staff have two options, office appropriate attire or should they wish, and under no obligation, company provided work wear.
3. The company should not be expected to compensate employees for something which was provided on a voluntary basis, has ceased since 2007 and which they have no obligation to wear.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that the provision and wearing of a uniform has always been an elective facility as opposed to a mandatory requirement for the staff affected. Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the Union’s claim for compensation for the loss of an elective facility, of which, many staff members did not avail themselves.
The Court makes no recommendation on any other matters that both parties agreed were not before it but which were raised during the Hearing.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
MK______________________
26 March 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.