FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: A HEIGHT SAFETY COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL MCCORMACK BL, INSTRUCTED BY WILLIAM FRY LLP SOLICITORS) - AND - ELEVEN WORKERS WITH VARIOUS SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Return of Holidays Deducted from our Members The within dispute concerns a unilateral decision by the Company to place its employees on paid annual leave from 25 March 2021 until 8 April 2021. The matter was referred to the Court on 6 October 2022. The Court convened a hearing in Dublin on 9 December 2022. The Parties were invited to provide additional written submissions in relation to a number of issues that arose in the course of the hearing. The Union’s additional submission was received on 2 January 2023; the Company’s on 15 January 2023. The Union submits that the aforementioned period of annual leave was enforced on the Workers without consultation or agreement during a period when strict travel restrictions were in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic with the consequence that the Workers were not in a position to enjoy the full benefits of their leave during the period in question and many of them had significantly reduced annual leave remaining for the rest of that annual leave year. The Company submits that the matter is not properly before the Court under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the 1969 Act’) as, in its submission, there is no trade dispute in being between it and the affected Workers. The Company’s Representative told the Court that the decision to compel the Workers to take a mandatory period of leave in March/ April 2021 was taken in the light of the Company’s financial performance in Quarter 1 2021 during which period it suffered losses of €197,000.00. It is also submitted on the Company’s behalf that its ‘Holiday Allowance and Length of Service Policy’ permits it to designate periods of compulsory annual leave. Finally, it submits that period of compulsory annual leave which is the subject of the within referral overlapped with the annual builders’ holidays for that year as determined by the Construction Industry Federation (2 to 9 April 2021). Discussion and Decision Section 24 (1) of the 1969 Act provides:
The Court is of the view that the within dispute is encompassed within the meaning of ‘trade dispute’ as provided for in the Principal Act, being a dispute between the Workers concerned and the Company about an important condition of their employment i.e. the timing of their statutory and contractual annual leave. The Court is cognisant of the fact that the Company had incurred significant financial losses in early 2021 and that this was a significant factor in its decision to compel the workers to take two weeks’ paid annual leave, commencing 25 March 2021. The Court is equally cognisant of the fact that there was little or no engagement by the Company with the Workers or their Trade Union prior to the decision being made. It is also the case, as submitted on the Workers’ behalf, that significant travel restrictions were in place at the time such that the Workers were not in a position to enjoy the full benefits of their annual leave. Having regard, therefore, to the detriment suffered by the Workers by being compelled to take two weeks of their annual leave entitlement during a period when Covid-related restrictions applied, the Court recommends that the Company provides each of the eleven affected Workers with a tax-free voucher to the value €175.00 per person. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Nuria de Cos Lara, Court Secretary. |
