Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89731 Case Number: LCR12665 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BOARD - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union that traffic inspectors who are permanent employees of the Board should not be required to make a contribution towards the sick pay element of the Board's welfare scheme.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the fact that the issue relates to the terms
of a scheme which applies to a majority of employees of the Board
the Court is of the opinion that the Union should seek to
negotiate the necessary amendment to the scheme on a more general
basis through the Group of Unions.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89731 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12665
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BOARD
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that traffic inspectors who are permanent
employees of the Board should not be required to make a
contribution towards the sick pay element of the Board's welfare
scheme.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Board's welfare scheme was introduced in 1947 when the
Board, with the agreement of the Unions, availed of its statutory
right to claim exemption from the Unemployment and National Health
Assurance Scheme. Permanent employees of the Board are required
to pay a contribution to the Board's welfare scheme in return for
benefits which are at least compatible with those provided under
the Department of Social Welfare's Pay Related Social Insurance
Scheme (P.R.S.I.). The present contribution rate to the Board's
welfare scheme is one and one half per cent of weekly gross pay up
to a maximum of eighty five pounds per annum. Permanent employees
also pay P.R.S.I. class D.1 contributions which gives entitlement
to contributory window's and orphan's pensions, deserted wife's
benefit and occupational injuries benefit. The Union claims that
the workers concerned are entitled to the same sick pay benefits
as other public service workers who contribute under the P.R.S.I.
class D.1 scheme and should not therefore be required to make a
contribution in respect of the sick pay element of the Board's
welfare scheme. The Board claims that their welfare scheme, which
is part of the comprehensive agreement on conditions of employment
with the Board, provides a range of benefits including sick pay
for the workers and that the workers concerned must make the
required contributions in order to benefit from the scheme. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 28th June, 1989 and as no agreement was reached at
conciliation conferences on 7th September, 1989 and 16th October,
1989, the matter was referred, on 19th October, 1989, to a full
hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 9th
November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Board claims that it's welfare scheme covers dental,
optical and sick pay benefits. The Union strongly holds the
view that the workers concerned, being permanent under the
P.R.S.I. class D1 scheme, are entitled to free sick pay as are
other employees on the Board's service who also come under the
class D1 scheme.
2. Permanent employees in the public service and permanent
teachers also come under the class D.1. scheme and are not
required to contribute to a sick pay scheme.
3. Temporary employees and certain categories of the Board's
permanent employees are in receipt of a free sick pay scheme
yet the workers concerned have no choice but to contribute to
the Board's welfare scheme.
4. The Board informed the Revenue Commissioners in July, 1987
that it's welfare scheme is not optional and all permanent
employees are obliged to pay the appropriate contribution. On
21st June, 1989 the Union was informed by letter by the Board
that there is no compulsion on any employee to remain a member
of the scheme. It is important to note that was not the case
as far as the Union was concerned up to the date of receipt of
that letter.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The sick pay scheme is an integral part of the welfare
scheme and it follows that the contribution paid by the
workers concerned is in respect of the full welfare scheme
including sick pay. This contribution is a global figure and
cannot be broken down into different elements.
2. The purpose of the welfare scheme is to provide sick pay
and other welfare benefits which are at least as generous as
those provided under the P.R.S.I. scheme. The welfare scheme
is part of the comprehensive agreement on conditions of
employment which is about to be reviewed. The Board does not
intend engaging in negotiations on the comprehensive agreement
with any single group in advance of this review.
3. The Union's objection to the payment of a contribution
towards the sick pay scheme appears to stem from discussions
between the Union and the income tax office. It seems an
individual employee has been informed by the income tax office
that the contribution to the welfare scheme is not allowable
for income tax purposes as it includes a contribution to the
sick pay scheme. This is not in accordance with the
information the Board has received from the income tax office
which states that the inclusion of optical, dental and other
benefits in the welfare scheme means that it is not an
approved permanent health benefits scheme for income tax
purposes.