Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Grade 7

Education Sector

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-00018062-001

21/03/2018

The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent since 1st September 1988. The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 21st March 2018 in relation to an interpretation by the Respondent of a Labour Court Recommendation LCR20854.

A Hearing was scheduled for 5th July 2018 but was adjourned by both Parties to enable direct discussions to take place with the Government Department. I emailed SIPTU on 4th October 2018 for an update and again on 7th November 2018. SIPTU confirmed by email dated 7th November 2018 that the dispute should be relisted again at the WRC. A Hearing was scheduled for 2nd January 2019.  

Labour Court Recommendation LCR 20854 made two Recommendations in relation to (1) Leave Entitlements of employees of (named) who transferred to the Respondent which found that these staff “have an agreed relationship with the education sector for pay and conditions of employment, including annual leave. This agreement should be honoured until an alternative agreement is put in place”. During engagement with the Respondent on its implementation SIPTU sought clarification from the Labour Court on the Recommendation in relation to Annual Leave. The Labour Court issued a clarification as follows – “The Court considered the request for clarification in relation to the former (named) staff confirmed that the “relevant transferred staff would bring with them all their agreed terms and conditions of employment on a personal to holder basis”.

The Complainant transferred to the Respondent at Grade 6 level with her annual leave entitlement of 31.5 days. The Complainant was subsequently promoted to Grade 7 in June 2016, however her annual leave was reduced to 29 days. The issue was raised on numerous occasions with the Respondent who held that even if the Annual Leave Allowances 14th December 2016 – Universities and Colleges Circular was applied the Complainant would be entitled to 30 days annual leave but even this has not been applied.

The Complainant is seeking the protection of the Labour Court Recommendation and that she should retain her annual leave of 31.5 days

The Respondent is an independent state agency under the aegis of the Department of Education and Skills. There was an amalgamation of three agencies into one under the Respondent. SIPTU referred a dispute to the Labour Court on behalf of staff of one named Agency who had amalgamated concerning a reduction in their annual leave entitlements. The Labour Court issued their Recommendation LCR 20854. Consequently in December 2014 the Department sanctioned revised arrangements for annual leave with effect from 14th January 2014.

The Complainant was granted 31.5 days annual leave. The Complainant was promoted in June 2016 and the revised arrangements on annual leave were applied, i.e. the Complainant was granted 30 days and was compensated for the loss at 1.5 times the loss i.e. 2.25 Days.

The Respondent argued that both them and the Department of Education and Skills have interpreted the Labour Court Recommendation correctly and that their interpretation is that the Labour Court did not intend that former named Staff would retain their leave entitlements on promotion as this would confer greater entitlements than those generally enjoyed in the Education Sector.

Evidence provided at the Hearing shows that the Department of Education and Skills confirmed sanction dated 12th December 2014 to implement annual leave arrangements for the Respondent’s staff. The sanction was provided on the proviso that SIPTU confirm in writing to the Respondent that this agreement would constitute full and final settlement for the revised annual leave arrangements for the Respondent’s Staff. SIPTU confirmed their agreement by email dated 15th December 2014 – copy provided to the Hearing.

This agreement provides as follows in relation to employees promoted – “Maintain their current leave entitlement, if the leave entitlement for the grade to which they are promoted is lesser than their current entitlement, subject to a maximum entitlement of 30 days annual leave. Those staff with a current annual leave entitlement of greater than 30 days will have their leave entitlement reduced to 30 days”

It is clear from the evidence that the Complainant who had 31.5 days annual leave prior to her promotion in June 2016 had her annual leave allowance reduced to 30 days effective from her promotion in line with the Agreement of December 2014.

I note from the evidence of the Respondent that as a result the Complainant was compensated for this loss by 2.25 days.

On the basis of the evidence I do not find in favour of the Complainant in relation to this dispute.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above I do not find in favour of the Complainant as the Terms of an agreement, which SIPTU agreed to, have been implemented by the Respondent.

Industrial Relations Act – dispute in relation to interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation. – Agreement between the Parties of December 2014 applied to the Complainant – Recommendation not in favour of the Complainant.