LCR23064

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Removal of long-standing public holiday entitlements.

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 17 October 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 November 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court concerns the application of public holiday entitlements to 15 Asset Management Airfield Technicians at Dublin Airport.

The company treats Christmas Eve as a public holiday in addition to the 10 designated statutory public holidays.

Up until 2010 most employees in the company were entitled under their contracts of employment to receive sixteen hours pay or time off in lieu when rostered to work a standard day on a public holiday and eight hours when rostered off.  This practice changed for new recruits appointed from 2010 onwards.  Since 2010, all new recruits are entitled under their contracts of employment to receive 11 hours pay/time off in lieu when rostered to work a standard day on a public holiday and eight hours when rostered off.

The workers at the centre of this dispute were all appointed since 2019 (on post-2010 contracts of employment) to work in the assert management group. Notwithstanding their contractual entitlements, they receive the benefit of 16 hours’ time off in lieu when rostered to work on a public holiday and eight hours when rostered off.

The company submits that this error only came to light in November 2023 when implementing a new time and attendance system. Prior to then, entitlements for the workers concerned were incorrectly recorded manually. The company submits that it has not sought to deduct the overpayment from the workers and has maintained the status quo pending resolution of this dispute.

The union accepts that the workers are receiving public holiday benefits that exceed their contractual entitlements. However, it asserts that the contractual provision is void for want of prosecution as the company had several opportunities to remedy the anomaly and never did so. The union submits that the issue of public holiday entitlement was discussed when one individual was appointed in 2019. He was awarded 16 hours when working public holidays and that error was replicated for the employees subsequently recruited.  As a result, it has all the hallmarks of a policy decision rather than an error.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submission of the parties.

It is accepted that the application of public holiday entitlement for those recruited after 2010 is as set out in their contracts of employment.

The Court notes that the application of 16 hours public holiday entitlement to the workers at the centre of this dispute resulted from human error during a time when such entitlements were manually recorded. The workers have benefited from this arrangement since 2019 and the Court notes that the company has not sought to recoup the overpayments to them.

The Court does not accept that an ongoing entitlement to 16 hours public holiday entitlement arises through custom and practice in the circumstances of this case. In the view of the Court where an error of this nature occurs, the employer should be able to correct that matter.

Having regard to all of the circumstances of this matter, the Court recommends that, as a goodwill gesture, the Company continue the current arrangement until the end of this year, and thereafter, the workers receive their public holiday entitlement as set out in their contracts of employment.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
11th November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.