Day 3 report.
Mr Kavanagh QC, acting for the employers, set about attacking the position of the union's legal team’s arguments at the start of day 3. Mr Kavanagh was at times scathing in his in his dismissal of the union position, referring to the union argument at one point as 'belonging in Alice in wonderland world'. He repeatedly referred to the employers as having been "generous" in providing 26 weeks leave a year, and that "common sense" told you that there was never any intention in the working time regulations to provide an "additional" 4 weeks paid leave.
Mr Kavanagh repeatedly suggested there was no reason why offshore workers couldn't be called on to work offshore for 48 weeks, a system which, he suggested, applied in other parts of the world. In essence, the position of the employers hasn't changed, in that they still maintain holiday entitlement is captured in the 'leave' cycle.
The QC went to great lengths to make his point on the issue of fixed periods of leave, which is what Mr Kavanagh claimed was the position of offshore workers. Just like teachers, who must take their leave during a predetermined period, or builders who have a 'trades fortnight', offshore workers must accept they too have set 'leave periods' during which they must take any holiday entitlement. He suggested this approach was not similar in any way to a claim made by the unions, that what the employers were doing was giving paid leave in dribs and drabs.
At the original hearing it had been suggested that adopting the offshore employers approach would be similar to that of asking onshore workers to take their annual holiday on every Saturday of the week, a time when they wouldn't normally be working. Mr Kavanagh said this would obviously be a "sham" and certainly was not what his clients were doing. He emphasised again there was ample time during current field breaks to take rest and leave.
Following Mr Kavanagh, Mr Stafford QC, representing Unite members, was given an opportunity to respond. It was by then late in the day, restricting Mr Stafford to just a few issues before winding up for the day. Nevertheless Mr Stafford was quick to attack the clients of Mr Kavanagh, claiming 'if the cap fits...etc' Mr Stafford implied the offshore employers were indeed trying to pull off a 'sham' and the sham cap certainly fits them in this particular case!
Mr Stafford spoke of how initially the employers set out to argue that in fact the regulations did not apply offshore. It was only after they had lost that argument that they then sought to argue that the long established shift pattern did in fact include holiday entitlement, something which previously they had said there was no entitlement to!
The case continues today and is expected to finish on time.
ENDS