Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90648 Case Number: LCR13167 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the provision of medical facilities.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds that the Company intention was to
provide an occupationally based medical service. However
notwithstanding this intention over a considerable period of time,
during the tenure of the previous two medical advisors
interpretations of the service resulted in certain additional
medical facilities being provided for staff which they reasonably
expected would be continued.
The Court accepts these facilities provided may not have been in
conformity with the service expected of the medical advisor.
Given the extended period of time over which facilities were
enjoyed by the employees, the manner of their withdrawal was not
conducive to harmonious relations between the management and
staff.
In all the circumstances the Court considers that the parties
should discuss the scheme and the interpretations of the service
provided with a view to reaching agreement on the nature and
content of the medical service to be provided and the extent to
which facilities may be made available to employees.
The parties should seek to reach agreement as expeditiously as
possible.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90648 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13167
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the provision of medical facilities.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is in the manufacture of adhesives, sealants and
coatings for the European market and employs 350 people in 2
plants at Tallaght and Ballyfermot. Three unions represent staff
interests and the Union in this case represents 65 workers in the
technical and clerical sections. An occupational medical facility
is provided by the Company, staffed by a nurse and doctor, each
qualified in the practice of Occupation Health. Medical clinics
are held for 2 hours each week in both Tallaght and Ballyfermot.
The Union claims that a recently appointed doctor by the Company
does not provide the same services as the previous two incumbents.
This alleged change particularly affects women members as the
doctor refused to provide prescriptions or advice on
contraception. The Company and the doctor feel that they are
providing an occupationally based service with the Company doctor
having no patient base in the sense normally associated with a
general practitioner. It is deemed inappropriate in such
circumstance for the doctor to become involved in the prescription
of drugs and products for ongoing medical conditions which are
distinctly the area of the employees' general practitioner or
specialist. The Union requested a Labour Court hearing under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts and agreed to be
bound by the recommendation of the Court. The Labour Court
investigation took place on 17th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company provides medical facilities to staff under the
terms of a comprehensive agreement. The facilities provided
include a yearly medical examination paid by the Company plus
the provision of free medical consultation on Company
premises. The terms of this comprehensive agreement provide a
set procedure to allow for change. In the case of the doctor
the Company did not go through any of the procedures laid down
before changing the facilities enjoyed by the workforce.
2. This dispute is not with the doctor but with the Company
who pay for the medical facilities. If a doctor does not
provide the facilities which were provided heretofore, it is
the duty of the Company to employ another to provide the extra
services or, alternatively to employ one doctor to provide all
the necessary facilities.
3. The doctor feels that he cannot prescribe for medical
areas which may require longer term treatment. In the area of
contraceptives this provides particular problems for our women
members, for whom he will not provide prescriptions or advice.
This means that they now must travel to and from their general
practitioner (G.P.), wait up to 2 hours and pay #10 or #12 for
a service which was previously provided by the Company doctor.
The Union feels that this is just another obstacle to the
employment of married women.
4. There is no claim for new facilities involved in this
case, but a restoration of a service, long established by
custom and practice. Despite the breach of the comprehensive
agreement by the Company, the Union has attempted to
compromise, on the issue of contraception and suggested an
annual letter from the workers G.P. after a check up. This
was rejected by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a chemical company with potential risks
associated with its products, processes and materials. The
Company are therefore conscious of the threat of occupational
exposure and have taken precautions in work processes and
clothing protection. In line with its commitments in this
area a free medical service is provided to staff for 2 hours
in each plant each week. A doctor and nurse are paid by the
Company for this service and are specifically qualified for
the purpose of providing an occupational medical service to
the staff. This is based on guidelines agreed between the
doctor and the Company and is set out in the contract signed
with the doctor (details supplied to the Court). The service
is as comprehensive as possible within these guidelines which
correspond with British Medical Association advice.
2. The Company's concern for the welfare of its employees and
the requirements of health, and environmental legislation
prompted it to establish an occupational medical service. For
the doctor, the main emphasis is preventative and educational.
He has no patient base such as that associated with G.P.'s,
neither is he on call to staff outside of the limited periods
in which he is in the plants. For these reasons it is clearly
impossible for him to deal with ongoing medical conditions,
such as high blood pressure, heart problems, respiratory
problems or seeking family planning type services, all of
which are distinctly the area of the employees G.P. or
specialist. Medical ethics suggests that this separation
should be maintained in the interest of patients and clients.
3. The Company has not issued any instructions to the doctor
on the subject of contraceptive pills. Indeed there may well
be circumstances when the issuing of prescriptions for
contraceptive pills may be advisable. In general however both
the Company and doctor agree that this service is outside the
scope of occupational medicine and for medical and practical
reasons should so remain.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds that the Company intention was to
provide an occupationally based medical service. However
notwithstanding this intention over a considerable period of time,
during the tenure of the previous two medical advisors
interpretations of the service resulted in certain additional
medical facilities being provided for staff which they reasonably
expected would be continued.
The Court accepts these facilities provided may not have been in
conformity with the service expected of the medical advisor.
Given the extended period of time over which facilities were
enjoyed by the employees, the manner of their withdrawal was not
conducive to harmonious relations between the management and
staff.
In all the circumstances the Court considers that the parties
should discuss the scheme and the interpretations of the service
provided with a view to reaching agreement on the nature and
content of the medical service to be provided and the extent to
which facilities may be made available to employees.
The parties should seek to reach agreement as expeditiously as
possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
22nd January, 1991. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.