FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : REXAM BEVERAGE CAN IRELAND LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Sick Benefit.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is an Electrician employed at the Waterford plant, in October 2011 he was informed by Management that due to his high level of absenteeism he would no longer benefit from the sick pay scheme. The Claimant is in dispute with the Company in relation to what he perceives as an unfair application of the discretionary aspect of the Company's sick pay benefit, thereby disadvantaging him.
On the 16th August 2012 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company issued a written statement to the Court dated 17th April, 2013 outlining the reasons for the Company's stance having regard to the particular circumstances of this claim. The Company informed the Court that it would not be in attendance at the Court hearing.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd May, 2013.The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant suffers from an uncontrollable chronic illness for which there is currently no known cure. The Claimant has no scope to alter its occurrences or effects and will most likely continue to suffer symptoms for the rest of his life.
2. The Claimant always fulfilled the conditions for entitlement to the scheme. The Company's action are unfair and given the Company's financial resources, payment of the scheme would not place a disproportionate burden on the Company.
3. There is a collective agreement between the Company and the Union negotiated under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) regarding Terms and Conditions of Employment. This cannot be unilaterally changed without the agreement of the parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 by the Union on behalf of a Worker who claims that the Company’s discretionary sick pay scheme was unfairly applied to him contrary to a Labour Relations Agreement (LRC) on the matter.
The Employer did not attend the hearing. The Court regards it as regrettable that the Employer was not present to avail of the opportunity to explain its version of the events giving rise to the claim.
Having considered the Claimant’s submission the Court is satisfied that the discretionary sick pay scheme as it stands does not provide for exceptional circumstances. The Court is of the view that the Company has been lenient to the Claimant and has accommodated him in the past, however, it has since agreed a new discretionary sick pay policy under the auspices of the LRC which while providing for the norm does not take account of exceptional circumstances which apply in this case.
Therefore the Court takes the view that the parties should re-engage to agree arrangements which reasonably accommodates the Claimant’s exceptional circumstances within the context of the LRC Agreement. The Court recommends that these discussions should be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th June 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.