LCR22144

• “Findings and Conclusions:
  
  The claim before me relates to an additional week of closure of the Employer from the 7th to the 14th August 2017. SIPTU argues that this week was an extension of the annual two weeks summer “shutdown”. SIPTU claims that, as per The Programme for Change (‘PFC’) which contains the arrangements in terms of the cover during the summer shutdown, the Employer was obliged to contact the janitorial staff in order of seniority to establish their availability to work. In that case, SIPTU argues, the Worker was the most senior operator and is entitled to a compensation for not being called to work.
  
  The Employer argues that the week in question (week 32 of 2017) was not a part of the annual shutdown. Rather it was a period of enforced annual leave. As it was unprecedented, therefore, the PFC and custom and practice don’t apply.
  I find that the matter of the additional closure during the week from the 7th to the 14th of August 2017 was a subject of a Labour Court hearing when SIPTU adopted a position that the Employer made a decision to enforce an additional week’s mandatory annual leave on the workforce and sought full-reimbursement in that regard. I find that this employment is a subject to a collective agreement. This particular issue has been dealt with through the WRC Conciliation service and the Labour Court, and because of its collective implications it is not appropriate for adjudication by an Adjudication Officer outside of the collective process.
  Recommendation:
  
  Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
  
  Having considered the submissions of both parties and for the reasons stated, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.”

This is an appeal by the Worker from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00017486, dated 16 April 2019) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Worker’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 15 May 2019. The Court heard the appeal in Limerick on 1 November 2019.

The Worker has been employed by Wyeth Nutritionals Ireland Limited (‘the Company’) as a Janitor since 20 April 1993. She works a four-cycle shift. The dispute between the Worker and the Company relates to Week 32 of 2017 during which the Company required a significant cohort of production, maintenance and laboratory staff to take mandatory annual leave immediately following the Company’s normal shutdown period. A small number of Workers providing essential services were required to work during Week 32. The Court has dealt comprehensively with the collective industrial relations issues that arose from the Week 32 shutdown in a previous Recommendation, LCR21912, dated 7 March 2019.

The Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that she should have been afforded the opportunity to work during Week 32 in 2017 as a number of her colleagues who have less seniority were invited to work that week. Ordinarily, she submits, she would have been rostered to work forty-eights hours that week had production proceeded as normal. As a consequence, she was forced to avail herself of forty-eight hours’ annual leave. She is seeking full re-imbursement of those forty-eight hours.

The Company’s Submission

The Company does not accept the Worker’s claim that she is the most senior colleague amongst the janitorial group. Rather, according to the Company’s submission, the Worker is the sixth most senior person (out of ten) in the relevant group.

Likewise, the Company rejects the Worker’s claim that she lost forty-eight hours during Week 32. According to the Company, at its height, the claim is for a maximum of thirty-six hours.

The Company submits that it credited all colleagues, including the Worker, with an additional six hours’ annual leave in December 2018 and a further sixteen additional hours’ annual leave in January 2019, “in recognition of the challenges that were faced and overcome in 2018”. This, in the Company’s view, reduces the claim to a maximum of fourteen hours’ pay. However, this is also not conceded by the Company as the Worker suffered no financial loss and she stands to benefit from the Court’s Recommendation in LCR21912.

Discussion and Recommendation

Having given very careful consideration to the Parties’ submissions, the Court can find nothing particular to the Worker’s circumstances that puts her outside the collective issues in respect of which the Court issued LCR21912 on 7 March 2019. The Court, therefore, affirms the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
CR______________________
29 November, 2019Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.