FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - DUBLIN FIRE BRIGADE - AND - 50 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION FORSA) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Allocation of Annual Leave to District Fire Officers and Associated Labour Court Recommendation (LCR22343)
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Summary of Union submission The Union submitted that it was established at the hearing of LCR22343 that District Officers are entitled to either 237 hours or 256 hours annual leave depending on the contract of employment. It was accepted by the Employer that 168 hours of annual leave are taken as a four-week block (summer leave). The Union submitted that left a further bank of 69 to 88 hours to taken at a different time which they subsequently indicated was actually 60 or 79 hours. The Union was clear that this block of time was unrelated to other forms of leave such as Time Off In lieu (TOIL). Following the Labour Court recommendation, the Employer wrote to the Unions confirming their acceptance of same. The Unions then sought clarity on how the additional block of hours would be utilised. The Employer’s response was that there was no additional block of hours. The Employer indicated that the position it had outlined to the Court at the time was incorrect. However, they have never stated how and where the mistake was made. This issue was the subject of independent mediation, but no resolution could be found so the matter was referred to the WRC. Prior to the WRC hearing the Employer made an offer in order to try and resolve the dispute. However, the offer fell far short of what the members believe is the outstanding leave that was identified at the previous Labour Court hearing by the Employer. The Unions position is that there is still an outstanding annual leave entitlement for District Officers that remains unaccounted for. This issue has been ongoing since 2012. Since the issuing of Labour Court recommendation LCR22343 a number of District officers have retired and have been negatively affected by the failure of the Employer to implement the recommendation. The Union are seeking that the Employer acknowledge the additional entitlement and indicate how the leave will be applied going forward. In addition, the Union are seeking retrospection. Summary of Employer’s submission It is the Employer’s submission that they have implemented the recommendation in full and applied the entirety of the annual leave entitlement due to the District Officers. They submitted that in calculating annual leave for District officers traditionally Saturdays and Sundays were included and that this had not been explained to the Labour Court at the hearing of LCR22343. Following the issuing of the Labour Court recommendation on the 19th January 2021 the Trade Union wrote maintaining that between 69 and 88 hours of annual leave had not been applied to the District Officers. The Employer reviewed the application of annual leave to the grade and is satisfied that the correct leave is being applied. The Employer accepts that over time different terminology has been used to describe the leave, but it is their submission that the District Officer is receiving the correct annual leave. All banks of leave available to District Officers and to which they are entitled are contained in the bank of 441 hours of leave. While the Employer does not accept that an entitlement to additional annual leave exists in order to resolve the dispute the Employer did make what it considers to be a reasonable offer to bring matters to a conclusion. Discussion The Court on the first day of the hearing noted that both parties agreed that the compensatory leave for Fire Officers and District officers and the grades in between is 240 hours. It was also accepted that District Officers received 9 hours annual leave for what was termed an EU Day and that this did not apply to any of the grades below District Officer. They also received 24 hours supervisory leave which Station Officers also receive. The confusion in respect of the summer leave block appears to be that the District Officer had 4 weeks block summer leave the same as other grades. However, the four weeks block summer leave was calculated as 20 days for Fire Fighters, the same four-week period was calculated as 28 days for District Officers. The Unions position is that the District Officers are therefore due an additional eight day’s annual leave. In order to understand how this different approach had arisen the Court asked both parties to provide the Court with copies of Fire Fighter and District Officer contracts and any other relevant documentation in relation to the calculation and application of annual leave. Both parties provided additional documentation to the Court and copied it to the other side. The Firefighter contracts provided going back to 1996 with the most recent being 2021 all stated annual leave four weeks but did not quantify the number of days that equalled to. In respect of the District Officer the correspondence / contracts provided show that in 1998 a letter issued stating that the annual leave entitlement was 32 days including Saturdays and Sundays made up of 4 weeks (28 days annual leave), 1-day annual leave in lieu of New Year’s Day coupled with a normal 3 days, rostered leave period. It went on to clarify that the annual leave was 4 consecutive weeks 28 days and one day in lieu of New Year’s Day. Contracts from 2003 to 2006 showed 32 days including 3 days rostered leave. In 2009 there was a contract for 4 weeks plus 1 day in lieu of New Year’s Day’ and also a letter which stated that the leave was 4 weeks (28 days) plus 1 day in lieu of New Year’s Day and that the normal additional 3 days rostered leave also applies giving a combined total of 32 days. The Court was also supplied with a document headed Dublin Fire Brigade Negotiated Leave which gave the results for a ballot carried out following a Labour Court recommendation in April / May 1993 which stated that the Labour Court had confirmed that 20 working days was equal to 28 consecutive days. The document set out that following the ballot, the leave for Fire Fighters was annual leave 4 weeks compensatory leave 6 days and 6 nights and for District Officers annual leave 4 weeks and compensatory leave 7 days and 7 nights. The Document goes on to say that following a further Labour Court hearing in 1985 agreement was reached to give each members an extra 24 hours which increased the fire fighters compensatory leave to 7 days and 7 nights. The District Officers at that time were given the 24 hours as an additional day and a night. It is therefore clear to the Court that since at least 1983 the Annual leave for District Officers has been 4 weeks the same as Firefighters. The Court notes that in an earlier Labour Court recommendation in November 1981 the annual leave for Firefighters was described as three weeks commencing on a Saturday and extending for 21 consecutive days and the entitlement was three weeks and three days plus 1 day for New Year’s Day. While the District officer was not mentioned the Station Officer was mentioned as having 24 consecutive days plus 3 days and a day for New Year’s Day. In 1981 the 40-hour week was still in place and the value of a day was 8 hours. Therefore, the differential that existed at that time, expressed in hours is 24 hours. The amount of annual leave for both categories was changed following the ballot in 1983 when the annual leave for the District Officer and the Grades below became four weeks. The 24-hour differential was maintained as District Officers and Station Officers had 7 days and 7 nights compensatory leave whereas Firefighters and Sub officers had six days and six nights. In 1985 the Sub Officers and Firefighters got an extra day and night compensatory leave bringing them up to the same as the District Officer. In order to maintain the 24 hours differential, the District Officer and Sub Officer were given an additional day and night which the Court was informed by the Union in the course of the second day of the hearing, is now referred to as supervisory leave hours. What appears to have happened is that there have been inconsistencies in the language used in the contracts for District Officer’s which has led to the confusion. In reality whether the annual leave is counted as 28 consecutive days, 4 weeks or 20 days the amount of time off the District Officer gets is the same and this block has not changed since 1983. The 24-hour differential that existed in 1981 still exists today in the form of the Supervisory leave hours. It is the Court’s understanding that the 1 day in lieu of New Year’s Day and the three rostered days referred to in the contract are included for all staff in the 240 compensatory hours. Based on the information provided to the Court by both parties, the Court concludes that there is no outstanding annual leave due to District Officers. The Court finds that the misunderstanding did arise from a genuine error. The Employer adopting a position that they were accepting Labour Court Recommendation LCR22343 when they clearly were not, only served to compound the confusion and frustration felt by the Workers. The Court notes that in advance of the Court hearing the Employer made an offer of compensation which was rejected by the Workers. The Court recommends that the parties re-engage on the issue of compensation with a view to concluding this matter. If agreement cannot be reached within 6 weeks of the date of this recommendation the Court should be informed, and it will issue a recommendation in respect of what compensation if any should be paid. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Nuria de Cos Lara, Court Secretary. |
