Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Clinical Scientist

A Third Level Institution

Representatives

Eoghan Ryan of  Forsa

HR Manager of the institution

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001246

06/04/2023

The Worker has been employed, in a Scientific position, by the Institution since 2005. She was promoted to a Senior position in 2009.

She recently became aware that her Annual Leave entitlement is 27 days while that of her colleagues, many with lesser service, is 30 days. This arises from the unexpected outworking of Annual leave aspects of recent Public Pay agreements.

The rate of pay is that of the Senior Clinical Scientist grade.

The Worker involver here is Pre 2014. This is being interpreted by the Institution to mean that, in keeping with their interpretation of the Public Service Stability (Haddington Road) Agreement (2010 to 2014) that her Annual leave should be at 27 days. This is in keeping with the Public Service Leave Standardisation ethos of the Agreement. The irony is that staff recruited to the Workers Laboratory, post 2014, are being granted 30 days, again by Management’s interpretation of the Agreement.

The on the ground reality is that there are 7 Workers involved - 6 on 30 days and the Worker, more senior, is on 27 days.

A parallel Laboratory in the Institution took a more flexible view, and all staff are on equal leave.

Efforts by FORSA to have this anomaly rectified have proved unsuccessful and the issue is now with the WRC.

The Employer, in their Oral testimony, largely accepted that this was an unfortunate, accidental almost, bye product of the Haddington Road Agreement. They maintained that their hands were tied by the Agreement and the controls being exercised by central Government overseeing Departments - Education and Public Enterprise and Reform.

Management did indicate that the issue had, again, been referred to the central level. They were hopeful that some resolution might be forthcoming but the situation was complicated on a national basis by many competing interests.

It was pointed out that the Labour Court in LCR20679 had looked at the Leave Rationalisation issue in general following from Haddington Road and had not made radical changes. The situation nationally was very complex with numerous local Annual leave practices in existence. The view was that a concession here, no matter how well meaning, could be a precursor to similar claims across the Public Service from numerous local interest groups.

In addition, the Worker was part of a “Body of Workers” and as such could not properly avail of the benefits of the Industrial Relations Act,1969.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Reading LCR 20679 it was clear that the Public Service Leave rationalisation process was fraught with numerous local peculiarities and agreements. It was a task that would have challenged the mythical wisdom of Fionn Mac Cumhaill never mind the best brains of the ICTU Public Services Committee and Central Government Representatives.

To their credit the Department Circular had made a good effort and the Court was loath to get involved.

However, unintended consequences can arise and common Industrial Relations sense has to apply particularly when a case is being referred for a Recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act,1969.

 The “Body of Workers” argument cannot be lightly set aside but in this case, where one Senior Worker in a group of 7 colleagues is on lesser leave than more recently recruited colleagues , common sense must take precedence.

This is more so where the neighbouring laboratory has managed to navigate the issue with more success.

The Recommendation has to reflect this.

Annual Leave , Anomalies from Haddington Road Annual Leave Rationalisation clauses.