Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91604 Case Number: LCR13527 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NYPRO - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a proposed amendment of the Company's Sick Pay Scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court notes the developments which led the Company to seek
to introduce a number of changes in the current Sick Pay Scheme.
However, having regard to the circumstances surrounding the
introduction of the scheme and to the short length of time in
which it has been in operation, the Court is of the opinion that
it would be inappropriate, at this time, to recommend any
fundamental changes in the conditions attached to the scheme.
The Court does recommend however the formation of a joint
management/workers (2/2) Benefit Administration group whose
function it would be on a monthly basis to monitor and control
the scheme to the full extent allowed within the rules. The
Court further recommends that the group commence operation in
January, 1992 for an initial period of 12 months at the end of
which time the issue may be referred back to the Court, by
either side for further consideration, if required.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91604 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13527
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NYPRO
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a proposed amendment of the Company's
Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in custom injection moulding and
employs 120 workers.
As a result of an Arbitrators report in 1988 a Sick Pay Scheme
was set up which was agreed by both parties and which took
effect from 1st January, 1989. The Scheme laid down was as
follows:
"From 1st January, 1989, permanent employees with twelve months
service or over should be given the difference between Social
Welfare entitlements and average nett pay, taking account of tax
rebates, for each week of absence on certified sick leave up to
a maximum of four weeks in each calendar year (January -
December). Payments will not be made for casual days' illness
or for the first three days unless the absence is for more than
one week.
The Company would be entitled to refer any claimant for sick pay
to their own doctor at any time and to withhold payment from a
person if they had grounds for believing that the Scheme was
being abused.
The operation of the Scheme should be reviewed jointly by Union
and Management after eighteen months experience of it".
In April 1990 the Company informed the Union of its doubts about
the economic viability of the Sick Pay Scheme as it stood. It
proposed that the Scheme be amended whereby workers themselves
would contribute to its funding by the payment of £1 per week.
The Company maintained that since the commencement of the scheme
the level of absenteeism within the Company has been steadily
increasing and that it cannot afford to totally fund and manage
the Scheme. After discussions between the parties the proposal
was balloted on and rejected by the Union members.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 8th April, 1991 and 8th
November, 1991 at which agreement was not reached. On 14th
November, 1991 the Labour Relations Commission referred the
dispute to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on 8th December, 1991.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are already in existence procedures which enable
the Company to deal with any suspected abuse of the Sick
Pay Scheme. Despite its alleged concern over the high
level of absenteeism the Company has not sufficiently
exercised its right under the disciplinary procedures.
3. 2. The Union is satisfied with the existing Sick Pay
Scheme. Members have decided through ballot that they are
opposed to any change which will result in self funding of
the scheme. Any such proposal by the Company is and will
always be unacceptable to the Union.
COMPANYS ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the steadily increasing level of absenteeism,
particularly absences due to sick leave, it is no longer
acceptable to the Company to "openfund" the Sick Pay
Scheme. As an alternative to the existing scheme the
Company proposes that the Sick Pay Scheme be jointly funded
and managed by both the Company and workers. This approach
should encourage a more responsible attitude to the scheme.
4. 2. The qualifying period of five days for which a worker
must be absent before receiving any payment encourages the
individual to be absent in order to obtain benefit. The
Company is anxious that this element of the Scheme be
amended. In order to provide a secure and viable future
for both the Company and the workforce it is essential that
the Sick Pay Scheme be amended. The cost of managing the
scheme coupled with the revenue lost, due to sick leave is
endangering the future of the Company. This cannot be
allowed to continue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the developments which led the Company to seek
to introduce a number of changes in the current Sick Pay Scheme.
However, having regard to the circumstances surrounding the
introduction of the scheme and to the short length of time in
which it has been in operation, the Court is of the opinion that
it would be inappropriate, at this time, to recommend any
fundamental changes in the conditions attached to the scheme.
The Court does recommend however the formation of a joint
management/workers (2/2) Benefit Administration group whose
function it would be on a monthly basis to monitor and control
the scheme to the full extent allowed within the rules. The
Court further recommends that the group commence operation in
January, 1992 for an initial period of 12 months at the end of
which time the issue may be referred back to the Court, by
either side for further consideration, if required.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
-------------------
14th January, 1992
A.Ni.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman