LCR22343

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL, DUBLIN FIRE BRIGADE,

- AND -

DISTRICT OFFICERS, DUBLIN FIRE SERVICE
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION,
FORSA)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Calculation Of Annual Leave

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 28 January 2020 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 09 October 2020 and 15 January 2021.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union is contending that District Officers’ annual leave entitlements are not applied in accordance with the grades below them.

2. Similar grades in the public service receive up to 32 days leave in total, so this claim is within established public sector norms.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The annual leave arrangements are fully in line with statutory requirements and have been in place for some time. There is no basis for revision.

2. There is no shortfall in the leave allocated to the District Officers.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU and F�rsa on behalf of District Officers employed by the Dublin Fire Brigade concerning the application of annual leave. The issue in dispute is the allocation of the additional annual leave to the District Officers over and above the annual leave which Fire Fighters are entitled to. It is not disputed that District Officers have an entitlement to more annual leave than Fire Fighters.

In support of their claim, the Unions submitted that in order to take 4 weeks annual leave as a block of leave in the Summer, District Officers are required to use 224 hours of their allocated annual leave, whereas Fire Fighters are required to use 168 hours. Therefore, they argue that the Council are deducting annual leave from their rest days.

Management disputed the contention and maintained that there is no shortfall in the leave allocated to the District Officers.

This dispute has been the subject of discussions, facilitation and conciliation talks over a lengthy period of time, without resolution. Confusing details were presented to the Court when it sought clarification on the issue, principally due to difficulty in acquiring details of the basic/standard annual leave entitlements of both grades of employees. In addition to basic annual leave, there are in existence other forms of leave which are applicable to both grades for different reasons associated with their atypical shift patterns. This combined with the difficulty in obtaining clarity on the basic/standard leave entitlement, presented challenges for the Court in understanding the core issue in dispute.

At the second day of its hearing, the Council clarified that depending on the District Officer’s contract of employment, they are entitled to either 237-hours or 256-hours annual leave in a leave year, in addition to other leave mentioned above.

It is fully accepted by the Council that the block of 4 weeks leave in the Summer equates to 168 hours out of their bank of annual leave hours and it confirmed therefore that District Officers have a further bank of 69 to 88 hours of annual leave remaining which can be taken at different times during the year or may be carried over to the following leave year.

With this clarification and acceptance of the matter in dispute given by the Council at the hearing on 15th January 2021, the Court is satisfied that the issue before the Court has been clarified and resolved to the Unions’ satisfaction.

The consequences of this finding by the Court is a matter for the parties to address.

Addendum:

In the Court’s view the classifications ascribed to leave has caused confusion where it is variously described in terms of ‘days’ leave and ‘weeks’ leave in circumstances where the Claimants work atypical shift patterns. Therefore, the Court recommends that annual leave should be referred to as annual hours, with each District Officer having a bank of hours off per annum.

The Court so Recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary.