LCR22399

1.Parity of Annual Leave For EWO's To Be Aligned With That Of Social Work Colleagues

BACKGROUND:

2.UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union claim that historicallythe EWO and SEWO workers and the Social Worker grades had parity regarding annual leave entitlements.

2. The Union seeks to have the HSE standardisation agreement applied to the EWO and SEWO grades.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1.It is the Employer's position thatthe agreement when the staff transferred was that conditions would no more or no less favourable than on the day of transfer and that remains to be the situation.

2.The Employer also refers to theHSE agreement in 2009 containing a productivity agreement linked to standardisation of working hours, providing a cost offset.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Union are seeking the re-establishment of the link between Educational Welfare officers (EWO) and Senior Education Welfare Officers (SEWO) with Social Worker and Social Worker Team Leaders which was severed in 2009 when the HSE did a standardisation of annual leave agreement with Social Workers as part of a wider cohort of grades.

Union Submission

It is the Unions submissions that from 2002 until 2009 the EWO and SEWO had the same annual leave as the Social Worker grades. They only became aware of the fact that the link had lapsed in 2018 and once they became aware of it, they sought to have it restored to the two grades with the exception of a small number of Worker’s in the grade who have personal to holder arrangements.

It is the Union’s submission that the standardisation agreement that the HSE caried out in 2009 has been rolled out beyond the HSE to other bodies and that they are seeking to have it applied to the EWO and SEWO grades who had a traditional link going back to 2002 with the Social Worker grade. The Social Worker’s employed by TULSA have the increased annual leave allowance.

Employer’s submission.

The Employer in this case was only established in January 2014 prior to that the EWO and SEWO grades were part of the National Education and Welfare Board and Family Support agency which resided in the Education sector. At the time the staff moved across to TUSLA there was an agreement that staff would transfer on no less or no more favourable conditions than those they had on the day of transfer. The annual leave entitlements that the EWO and SEWO have are the same as they were at that point in time.

The HSE agreement in 2009 was specific to that employment and contained a productivity agreement which linked it to the standardisation of working hours thus providing a cost offset. While the agreement may have been extended to some HSE funded bodies TUSLA is under the remit of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs who set the terms and conditions for staff in TUSLA.

Discussion.

The Court notes that this issue was only raised with this Employer in 2018. It was the Union’s submission that this was when they became aware of the issue. The Court also note that when staff transferred to the agency in 2014 it was on the basis of the terms and conditions that they held at that point on time.

The Court having reviewed the copy of HSE standardisation agreement provided noted that there was a productivity element linked to the provision of the additional leave. The Court recommends that parties engage to see if the cost of the provision of the additional leave could be offset by a productivity agreement as happened in the HSE agreement.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
DC	______________________
27 April 2021	Deputy Chairman