Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Retired craft gardener

Local Authority

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00018063-001

21/03/2018

The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 17th February 1986 as a groundsman and eventually was promoted to craft gardener.

The issue stems from a practice that the Claimant stated was utilised within the Respondent. An employee in the first year of employment were not allowed to take any annual leave. A banking system was in operation in which the first year’s annual leave was ‘banked’ until the employee retired or left the employment.

Prior to the Claimant retiring on the 26th March 2018, the Claimant lodged his claim with the WRC.

His claim that there was no ambiguity regarding the treatment of annual leave. It was common practice for Claimants to bank annual leave to be taken upon retirement or termination.

The Claimant submitted that this continued to 1998.

The Claimant explained that he arranged with his supervisor to take half of his second-year annual leave entitlement during the first year of his employment to facilitate childcare arrangements and the remaining half in his second year.

The Claimant sought 15 days annual leave.

The Respondent raised a preliminary application that the Claimant’s case was out of time. The application relates to annual leave accrued in 1986.

The Organisation of Working Time Act and the Workplace Relations Act requires applications for adjudication to me made within 6 months of the date of the contravention.

The Respondent also submitted that there was no attempt by the Claimant to resolve the grievance through its’ formal or informal Grievance process. Therefore, the Claimant has not exhausted the internal grievance process and the claim should be dismissed accordingly.

At the hearing it was further submitted that the facts of the case referred to a body of workers and not the Claimant alone.

The Respondent agreed that prior to the introduction of The Holidays (Employees) Act 1973 the practice explained by the Claimant did exist. However, the Claimant started his employment 13 years after the 1973 Act was introduced.

Without prejudice to the preliminary application, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant had taken his annual leave and its historical payroll records confirmed same.  

The dispute straddles three annual leave years:

From start date 17th February to the 31st March 1986

From 1st April 1986 to 31st March 1987

From 1st April 1987 to 31st March 1988.

The Claimant had records of the days annual leave taken, the public holidays, Church holidays and sick leave he took in 1986 and 1987.

The Respondent had their payroll records showing holidays taken by the Claimant.

The Respondent provided a copy of the contract of employment provided to the Claimant and signed by him on the 5th February 1986. There is no mention in this document of the holiday deferral.

It was not possible for me to reconcile the records of the Claimant and Respondent. The Claimant confirmed that he was a member of his Trade Union during this period. The legislation in force at the time allowed for the provision of paid annual leave. If there was an agreement deferring or varying in any way an employee’s legal rights, I would have expected it to have been recorded for clarification purposes. There is no such written agreement.  

I make no recommendation in this dispute.