Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87956 Case Number: LCR11715 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COMER YARNS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 100 workers against the Company's withdrawal of the sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
6. The Court recommends that the parties begin negotiations
without further delay on the introduction of a sick pay scheme
incorporating terms which would enable individuals who were
abusing the benefits therefrom to be dealt with. It further
appears to the Court that abuse of the scheme maybe but one
element contributing to the high level of absenteeism. The Court
further recommends that the Company and Union jointly examine
means whereby this situation might be improved, before serious
damage is done to the plant.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87956 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11715
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: COMER YARNS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 100 workers against
the Company's withdrawal of the sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The scheme has been in operation for the past 8 years and was
part of a collective agreement on wages and conditions of
employment. The scheme provided for up to 1 week sick pay per
year for staff with 3 years' service, 2 weeks for 4 years' service
and so on to a maximum of 5 weeks for 7 years' service. If a
worker took any sick leave, he or she could not take any more sick
leave for a year after returning to work, regardless of whether
the full annual sick leave entitlement had been taken.
3. In March, 1987, the Company advised the Union that if
absenteeism, running at a level in excess of 10%, did not improve
the sick pay scheme would be withdrawn, as provided for in the
scheme. On 19th August, 1987, the Union was informed that as no
improvement had occurred the scheme was being withdrawn. The
Union argued that the withdrawal of the scheme punished the
innocent as well as the guilty. Local level discussions failed to
resolve the issue and on 18th September, 1987, it was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. As no agreement
could be reached at a conciliation conference held on 9th
December, 1987, the matter was referred, on 14th December, 1987,
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 10th February, 1988, in Letterkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's interpretation of the scheme could be a
damaging factor. For example, if an employee is eligible for
5 weeks payment but returns after only 1 weeks absence, he or
she is not entitled to any of the remaining weeks within the
next 12 months. This unusual characteristic would appear to
encourage absenteeism rather than reduce it.
4. 2. The Union holds no brief for those who abuse the system
but it is concerned at the lack of cover for those members who
have given loyalty and commitment to the Company over the
years and who now have no scheme to help cushion them over a
period of illness.
3. There are several companies, in the immediate area, who
operate sick pay schemes without appearing to have the same
problem. These companies have operated the 'company doctor'
examination to good effect. However, there has been a marked
reluctance by the Company to follow this course. The Union is
prepared to co-operate and monitor the scheme with a view to
minimising abuses, as it believes that adequate disciplinary
procedures exist to deal with offenders.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The sick pay scheme provides for its own termination if
the level of absenteeism exceeds 5%. Clause 8 of the scheme
states:-
"Any increase in absenteeism or abuse of the scheme and the
scheme will be discontinued. (Present average is less
than 5%)".
2. Many warnings were issued to the Union of the Company's
concern at the growing level of absenteeism. In March, 1987,
the Union was informed that absenteeism was running at a level
in excess of 10% and that under the terms of the scheme this
level would result in the elimination of the scheme. The
Company indicated that it was prepared to continue the scheme
if absenteeism came back to a normal level on a reasonably
consistent basis between March and August, 1987. A further
warning of continued dissatisfaction with absenteeism levels
was issued by the Company on 20th May, 1987. (Average of
8.59% during the period from March, 1987).
3. The Union has suggested the introduction of a 'company
doctor'. The Company agreed to give consideration to this
matter, but it is not seen as the answer to absenteeism.
4. The Company has indicated that if absenteeism is
maintained on standard during the coming 12 months, then it
would consider introducing some form of sick pay scheme. The
Company considers that this is fair and reasonable in the
circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court recommends that the parties begin negotiations
without further delay on the introduction of a sick pay scheme
incorporating terms which would enable individuals who were
abusing the benefits therefrom to be dealt with. It further
appears to the Court that abuse of the scheme maybe but one
element contributing to the high level of absenteeism. The Court
further recommends that the Company and Union jointly examine
means whereby this situation might be improved, before serious
damage is done to the plant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
24th February, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.