Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87508 Case Number: LCR11535 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - and - ICTU |
Claim by the Union Group on behalf of approximately 5,500 industrial workers that sick-leave arising from an accident on duty should be divorced from ordinary sick-leave.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the differing impact of the terms of the
respective sick-pay arrangements, the Court is of the opinion that
it is not appropriate to apply the provisions of DPS Circular 1/82
to the Sick-Pay Scheme for Industrial Employees. The Court does
not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87508 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11535
J301 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11535
PARTIES: GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
and
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS GROUP
(Representing State Industrial Employees)
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union Group on behalf of approximately 5,500
industrial workers that sick-leave arising from an accident on
duty should be divorced from ordinary sick-leave.
Background:
2. The Union Group raised the matter at the Joint Industrial
Council for State Industrial Employees meeting of 4th November,
1986 and it was discussed at a number of subsequent meetings. The
Union group wished to have the Sick-Leave Scheme for civil
servants extended to industrial workers in as far as it provides
that when an employee is on sick-leave as a result of an accident
on duty, such sick-leave would not be added to other sick-leave,
thereby possibly causing a reduction in sick-pay. The Employer's
Side said that they were not disposed to extending the scheme to
industrial workers as they were of a different status. It was
also pointed out by the Employer's Side that there was the problem
of comparing people who are entitled to Social Welfare benefits to
those who are not. They also considered that it would not be
possible to concede the claim in the light of the difficult
economic circumstances. As the matter could not be settled at
local level, on 5th May, 1987, it was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 29th October, 1987 - the earliest date suitable to all parties.
Union Groups' arguments:
3. (a) The Civil Service Sick-Pay Scheme provides for 6
months at full pay, 6 months at half pay and then
pension rate of pay. The 6 months full and half pay
may only be taken once in any 4 year period. The
provisions of D.P.S. Circular 1/82, for established
civil servants, allow sick-pay arising out of
accidents at work to be kept separate from sick-pay
arising in the normal course of events.
(b) The situation could arise where as a result of an
accident on duty, an industrial worker might exhaust a
substantial portion, if not the entire amount of his
sick-leave. This would mean that for a period of 4
years he could have no more sick-leave for what might
be termed "ordinary illness".
(c) The Union Group find it difficult to understand the
logic of the Employer's Side in this matter. It is
illogical that an established civil servant and a
state industrial employee could sustain similar
injuries in the same accident and have their
sick-leave treated totally differently. One has his
sick-leave treated distinctly while another has it
aggregated and could lose financially if he is
subsequently ill within the 4 year period.
(d) The fact that the various Government Departments spend
so much money on safety training and equipment in
order to prevent accidents among the industrial
workers, is an indication that they are a high risk
group in terms of on duty accidents. Therefore, it is
not unreasonable in these circumstances that DPS
Circular 1/82 be applied to them.
Government Departments' arguments:
4. (a) The terms of D.P.S. Circular 1/82 were conceded mainly
to cater for high risk groups such as customs
officials and prison officers. The Employer's Side
contend that industrial workers do not fall into this
category.
(b) State industrial employees have traditionally followed
analogues in the Construction Industry and Local
Authorities for improvements in their pay and
conditions rather than non-industrial civil servants.
Their existing conditions regarding sick-leave and
sick-pay are generous, particularly when compared with
employees in Local Authorities and the Construction
Industry.
(c) It has been the practice for industrial workers
involved in accidents on duty to seek compensation in
the Courts. Any award in such cases takes account of
loss of earnings due to absence from work. Thus it
cannot be said that workers lose out financially
because of these accidents.
(d) Given the state of the national finances the
Government is having to implement widespread cutbacks.
Any extension of sick-leave benefits would have to be
met by reducing pay-roll costs elsewhere.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the differing impact of the terms of the
respective sick-pay arrangements, the Court is of the opinion that
it is not appropriate to apply the provisions of DPS Circular 1/82
to the Sick-Pay Scheme for Industrial Employees. The Court does
not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th November, 1987 John O'Connell
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman