Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8977 Case Number: AD8936 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AVONMORE FOODS P.L.C. - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST 578/88, concerning the interpretation of clause A2 of the Company's sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8977 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3689
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: AVONMORE FOODS P.L.C.
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST 578/88, concerning the interpretation of
clause A2 of the Company's sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a sick pay scheme as follows:-
(a) Six weeks full basic pay less social welfare benefit.
(b) Six weeks at half pay or lesser sum which together with
social welfare benefit will amount to three quarters of
the basic wage rate.
The scheme, which was negotiated by the Irish Co-operative
Organisation Society, has been in operation since 1973, in the
following way:-
(a) Nobody will get more than the above in a calendar year.
(b) Nobody will get more than the above for the same
illness. People do not re-qualify for benefit who are
on long term illness.
The scheme also includes the undertaking that "individual cases of
long illness will be looked at sympathetically locally also,"
(clause 14(a)(11)).
3. The Union claims that a worker who suffered a serious back
injury at work and received payment from the scheme commencing
25th March, 1987, is also entitled to claim sickness benefit
commencing 1st January, 1988 and 1st January, 1989, as the terms
of the scheme provide for payment within a calendar year. If an
illness overruns into the following year then benefit should be
given for that year. The Company disputes the Union's contention
arguing that a person on long-term illness does not requalify for
benefit. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 12th January, 1989, the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation:
"RECOMMENDATION:
It seems to me that the Union members should consider
protecting the Scheme that they enjoy under the managements'
present disputed interpretation. The average sickness is
eleven days per annum per person employed. The equivalent in
money terms is #288.61 per person annually. Many employments
could not sustain such costs in these times of cut backs
generally.
The Haughney case is of no assistance to the Union by way of
precedent, as his illness stradled the two years December,
1986 to March, 1987. The key to a fair interpretation is
found in clause 14(a)(11) as quoted above. If a person had a
right to twelve weeks sick pay each calendar year for the
same bout of illness why then have a hardship clause at all?
On balance I find the employer's interpretation more
plausible, and I recommend that the claim fails. The Union
should however feel free to pursue the matter further, under
the hardship clause in 14(a)(11), although with a Court case
pending in this case, it may be difficult for the Company to
accommodate for reasons of admission of liability etc."
The Union rejected the recommendation and on 2nd February, 1989,
appealed it to the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
25th April, 1989, in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights Commissioner, quoting the Company says that a
claimant cannot receive more than twelve weeks benefit in
total. The terms of the scheme do not limit payment to twelve
weeks. The scheme in clause 14(a)(11) does address the
position of long-term illness giving the Company discretion to
pay.
2. The situation involves a worker with thirty-seven years
continuous service. He has an excellent record with regard to
work performance, punctuality and attendance. There is
absolutely no doubt about his inability to work at the present
time. It is unfair of the Company not to pay him benefit
under the scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In 1987, over #346,000 was paid out under the scheme. The
overall cost of absenteeism in the Company is running at
approximately #.5m. This represents a major burden on the
Company and is attributed to the generous sick pay scheme.
Any changes in the scheme would push costs up and have a
detrimental effect on its future.
2. The scheme makes a clear distinction between illness and
injuries. Long-term illness is monitored and looked at
sympathetically locally in respect of keeping a job open.
Long-term injury which is the subject of litigation cannot be
looked at locally because of obvious implications of liability
on the Company.
3. The Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, who
originally negotiated the Scheme in 1973, agree with the
Company's interpretation of the scheme's conditions.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
18th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.