LCR23043

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00045143 (CA-00055954, IR-SC-00001246)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 21 June 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 28 May 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

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

A Labour Court hearing took place on 26 September 2024.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal on behalf of University College Dublin (‘the University’) from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (IR-SC-00001246, dated 28 May 2024) under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 21 June 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 26 September 2024.

The Dispute

The Worker has been employed by the University since 2005. In 2009, she was promoted to her current position of Senior Clinical Scientist in the National Virus Reference Laboratory. She is one of a team of eight Senior Clinical Scientists working there.

The dispute relates to the Worker’s annual leave entitlement which is twenty-seven days per annum whereas that of her seven colleagues is thirty. The Worker is seeking a retrospective entitlement to a total of thirty annual leave days per annum backdated to the commencement of her current contract in 2009.

In support of her claim, the Worker submits that the University has erred in its interpretation of the relevant Department of Education and Skills Circular from 2014: ‘Revised Annual Leave Arrangements for Staff Employed by Universities and Colleges Other than Lecturing Staff’, and in particular paragraph 8 thereof.

It is submitted on behalf of the University that the within dispute, concerned as it is with the interpretation of a Departmental Circular – itself underpinned by a collective agreement – is collective in nature and, therefore, not within the scope of section 13 of the Act.

Paragraph 8 of the Circular

Paragraph 8 provides:

“With effect from 7 January 2014 the total allowance for the number of annual leave days, inclusive of for example festival and race days, privilege days, Church holy days, etc., which may be applied in respect of existing staff will range from a minimum of 22 to a maximum of 32 days depending on grade. Existing staff while they remain in their current grades will retain their existing leave allowance subject to the total, including festival and race days, privilege days, Church holy days, etc., not exceeding the overall ceiling of 32 days.”

Decision

The application of Paragraph 8 to the Worker has resulted in her having a lesser annual leave entitlement than that of her colleagues at the same grade. This may be an unintended consequence of the manner in which Paragraph 8 has been constructed and may be seen as having led to an anomalous and unfair outcome for the Worker.

However, it is common case that the Court is being requested in the within appeal to interpret the aforementioned Department of Education and Skills circular which circular has general application to a wide range of workers in the third-level sector nationally.

Section 13(2) of the Act provides:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to [an Adjudication Officer].”

It is apparent to the Court that in order to make a decision regarding the matter in issue between the Parties to this dispute, the Court would have to advance an interpretation of a circular which is of general application to a body of workers as regards their annual holiday entitlements.

Having carefully considered the Parties’ submissions, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction under section 13 of the Act to make a decision in the within appeal.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
FC	______________________
30 September 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.