Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87385 Case Number: LCR11317 Section / Act: S67 Parties: C.I.E. - and - TSSA |
Claim for full pay while on maternity leave.
Recommendation:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends that the Company introduce payment of full basic pay
for maternity leave on the same terms and conditions which apply
in Aer Lingus and Bord Na Mona. Having regard to the delay in
processing this claim the Court recommends that the terms be
introduced with effect from 1st July, 1986.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87385 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11317
CC8625 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11317
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
TRANSPORT AND SALARIED STAFFS, ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim for full pay while on maternity leave.
Background:
2. In a letter to the Company on 24th September, 1984, the Union,
on behalf of its members in C.I.E., served a claim on the Company
that full basic pay should be paid to members of the female
salaried staff of the Company while absent on maternity leave.
In a meeting with the Union on 2nd November, 1984, the claim was
rejected by the Company on the basis that (a) it was complying
with the provisions of the Maternity Protection of Employment Act
and (b) the cost of conceding the Union's claim was prohibitive.
At the moment, the Company pays what the workers would be entitled
to if they were covered by social welfare payments. The Company
estimates that the cost of concession of the claim would be
approximately #34,000 per annum. A further meeting was held
between the Company and Union on 6th November, 1985, but no
agreement was reached. On 16th December, 1985, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 22nd January, 1986. No
agreement was reached. The matter rested there for some time.
Then in April, 1987, the Union asked that the matter be processed
further. On 13th May, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place in Dublin on 15th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) This claim has a very long history, and the Union has
had to work hard even for the arrangements which are in
force presently. The matter was the subject of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 4176, issued on 21st January,
1977.
(ii) On 24th September, 1984, the Group wrote to the
Company's staff relations Manager, and pointed out that
there had been many developments and improvements in
respect of salaried female staff in other comparative
employments. The Union requested that the letter be
treated as a formal claim for the payment of full
salary to C.I.E. female salaried staff absent on
maternity leave for the appropriate number of weeks
specified in the legislation.
(iii) There is an extensive list of good employments which
concede full pay to staff on maternity leave (details
supplied to the Court). The Company side has referred
to the probability that any concession of the claim to
the salaried staff would trigger off repercussions in
other groups of grades. The Union pointed out that
there could be no repercussions as all
other groups of grades are covered by the social
welfare provisions, and are eligible for the
entitlements under the Acts. It must also be said that
the Union has its reservations on how the figure of
#34,000 for concession of the claim was arrived at, and
indeed about the size of the figure itself.
(iv) The Company's contention that it is paying the
equivalent social welfare amount is at variance with
the de facto situation which is that the equivalent
social welfare amounts paid to C.I.E. staff are subject
to tax deductions whereas the allowance provided for in
the Act is tax free and in addition the employees
covered by the Act benefit from a tax refund or tax
credit. The payment of full pay would to some extent
redress the situation as such an arrangement is now a
feature of all good employments.
(v) The Union is requesting the Court to recommend
concession of the claim on a retrospective basis.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company pays its female salaried staff on maternity
leave, the equivalent of the State Maternity Allowance
on an ex-gratia basis. The Company considers this to
be fair and reasonable and it is in line with the
maternity leave payment made to other female staff who
are fully insured (details with the Labour Court).
(b) The Company pays the full equivalent of 70% of weekly
reckonable earnings and should not be expected to be
liable for the varying personal income tax payments of
individual employees.
(c) It is estimated that the cost of conceding this claim
would be #34,000 per annum without taking account of
any repercussive claim which might be made on behalf of
staff who pay the full P.R.S.I. contribution. This is
a cost increasing claim, and C.I.E. cannot afford any
additional costs if it is to successfully combat
intense competition and maintain its present level of
service and employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends that the Company introduce payment of full basic pay
for maternity leave on the same terms and conditions which apply
in Aer Lingus and Bord Na Mona. Having regard to the delay in
processing this claim the Court recommends that the terms be
introduced with effect from 1st July, 1986.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
20th July, 1987
P.F./J.C.
CD87385 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11317
CC8625 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11317
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
TRANSPORT AND SALARIED STAFFS, ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim for full pay while on maternity leave.
Background:
2. In a letter to the Company on 24th September, 1984, the Union,
on behalf of its members in C.I.E., served a claim on the Company
that full basic pay should be paid to members of the female
salaried staff of the Company while absent on maternity leave.
In a meeting with the Union on 2nd November, 1984, the claim was
rejected by the Company on the basis that (a) it was complying
with the provisions of the Maternity Protection of Employment Act
and (b) the cost of conceding the Union's claim was prohibitive.
At the moment, the Company pays what the workers would be entitled
to if they were covered by social welfare payments. The Company
estimates that the cost of concession of the claim would be
approximately #34,000 per annum. A further meeting was held
between the Company and Union on 6th November, 1985, but no
agreement was reached. On 16th December, 1985, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 22nd January, 1986. No
agreement was reached. The matter rested there for some time.
Then in April, 1987, the Union asked that the matter be processed
further. On 13th May, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place in Dublin on 15th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) This claim has a very long history, and the Union has
had to work hard even for the arrangements which are in
force presently. The matter was the subject of Labour
Court Recommendation No. 4176, issued on 21st January,
1977.
(ii) On 24th September, 1984, the Group wrote to the
Company's staff relations Manager, and pointed out that
there had been many developments and improvements in
respect of salaried female staff in other comparative
employments. The Union requested that the letter be
treated as a formal claim for the payment of full
salary to C.I.E. female salaried staff absent on
maternity leave for the appropriate number of weeks
specified in the legislation.
(iii) There is an extensive list of good employments which
concede full pay to staff on maternity leave (details
supplied to the Court). The Company side has referred
to the probability that any concession of the claim to
the salaried staff would trigger off repercussions in
other groups of grades. The Union pointed out that
there could be no repercussions as all
other groups of grades are covered by the social
welfare provisions, and are eligible for the
entitlements under the Acts. It must also be said that
the Union has its reservations on how the figure of
#34,000 for concession of the claim was arrived at, and
indeed about the size of the figure itself.
(iv) The Company's contention that it is paying the
equivalent social welfare amount is at variance with
the de facto situation which is that the equivalent
social welfare amounts paid to C.I.E. staff are subject
to tax deductions whereas the allowance provided for in
the Act is tax free and in addition the employees
covered by the Act benefit from a tax refund or tax
credit. The payment of full pay would to some extent
redress the situation as such an arrangement is now a
feature of all good employments.
(v) The Union is requesting the Court to recommend
concession of the claim on a retrospective basis.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company pays its female salaried staff on maternity
leave, the equivalent of the State Maternity Allowance
on an ex-gratia basis. The Company considers this to
be fair and reasonable and it is in line with the
maternity leave payment made to other female staff who
are fully insured (details with the Labour Court).
(b) The Company pays the full equivalent of 70% of weekly
reckonable earnings and should not be expected to be
liable for the varying personal income tax payments of
individual employees.
(c) It is estimated that the cost of conceding this claim
would be #34,000 per annum without taking account of
any repercussive claim which might be made on behalf of
staff who pay the full P.R.S.I. contribution. This is
a cost increasing claim, and C.I.E. cannot afford any
additional costs if it is to successfully combat
intense competition and maintain its present level of
service and employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends that the Company introduce payment of full basic pay
for maternity leave on the same terms and conditions which apply
in Aer Lingus and Bord Na Mona. Having regard to the delay in
processing this claim the Court recommends that the terms be
introduced with effect from 1st July, 1986.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
20th July, 1987
P.F./J.C.