Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93140 Case Number: AD9329 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BOLANDS MILLS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 479/92 concerning a worker's entitlement to retain social welfare benefit cheques while in receipt of sick pay from his employer.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submission made by the parties the Court
is satisfied that in the circumstances of this case the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation was correct, and should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93140 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BOLANDS MILLS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 479/92 concerning a worker's entitlement
to retain social welfare benefit cheques while in receipt of sick
pay from his employer.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are four workers employed on the dock mills site. In
1984 the worker was appointed as a siloman to that area. In 1986
and 1987 the worker was absent from work due to illness for
periods of approximately 3 months. During these periods he was
paid sick-pay at full basic rate in accordance with the terms of
the Company Sick-Pay Scheme and handed over the social welfare
cheques to the Company.
3. The worker had further periods of sick leave and retained his
social welfare cheques on the basis that it was part of the
conditions of employment as siloman that he was not required to
hand over his social welfare cheques while in receipt of sick-pay.
The Company disputed that such an agreement existed with the
worker and requested return of his social welfare cheques.
4. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner's hearing
was held on 21st December, 1992 and on 3rd February, 1993 he
issued the following recommendation:-
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties it
is my conviction that it just would not be equitable or
reasonable for the worker to retain the social welfare
benefit in the circumstances where the employer pays him,
while out sick, full pay. I therefore recommend that the
retention of the social welfare benefit by the worker should
cease forthwith".
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
5. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 29th March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The payment of basic pay for a period of 12 months, plus
retention of social welfare benefit is part of the worker's
condition of employment as siloman.
2. The worker was not given any written conditions of
employment on his appointment by management and had to rely on
the previous incumbent, who was retiring, to ascertain the
conditions attached to the position.
3. Two other workers in the same area have similar agreements
regarding sick-pay, which are acknowledged by management.
4. There is no financial gain to the worker under the present
arrangements as they were introduced to off-set the loss of
other regular non-basic payments while out sick.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Historically, there are a number of personal-to-holder
agreements in the plant which the Company is endeavouring to
eliminate in the context of Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The worker is not
included in this group.
2. It was agreed, at the time of his appointment, that the
worker would return social welfare cheques while in receipt of
sick-pay. This is borne out by the fact that he returned
social welfare cheques in 1986 and 1987. It was in late 1987,
when the worker discovered that the millers were not returning
their social welfare cheques while in receipt of sick-pay that
he unilaterally withdrew from the agreement.
3. Only two of the four workers employed in the dock mills
site have agreements to retain social welfare cheques while in
receipt of sick-pay.
DECISION:
8. Having considered the submission made by the parties the Court
is satisfied that in the circumstances of this case the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation was correct, and should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
28th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.