Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93115 Case Number: LCR14033 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: YEAST PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a sick-pay scheme.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that none of the changes sought by the
Union in the terms of the Sick-Pay Scheme proposed by the Company
and amended in accordance with the terms of the I.R.O.'s letter of
13th July, 1992 is sustainable.
The Court therefore recommends that the scheme as proposed and
amended above should be accepted by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93115 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14033
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: YEAST PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a sick-pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the production of yeast for the
bakery trade. In June, 1991, the Union submitted a claim for the
introduction of a sick-pay scheme, under Clause 4 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress. The claim was on behalf of nine
employees, i.e., six brewers and three packers. The Company
responded by forwarding details of a sick-pay scheme for the
Union's consideration. Discussions at local level followed, but
agreement was not reached, and the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place
and final proposals emerged in September, 1992 (details supplied
to the Court), in which the Industrial Relations Officer proposed
amendments to the scheme concerning:-
(i) Paragraph 9: Abuse of scheme.
(ii) Paragraph 15: Cover arrangements.
(iii) Paragraph 5: Duration of benefit.
A further conciliation conference was held to clarify various
aspects of the scheme. The final document was subsequently
rejected by ballot of the workers.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of
February, 1993, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the
12th March, 1993 (the earliest date convenient to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The amendments sought to the proposed sick-pay scheme are
as follows.
1. Para 4.
Benefit should commence on day 1 of illness. The loss of
the first 3 days would reduce the benefit of the scheme
in cases of short-term illness.
2. Para 5.
The duration of benefit should be 26 weeks and the
benefit year should be from January to December. A
12-month period to build up entitlements, after benefit
has been exhausted, is unreasonable.
3. Para 7.
It would be more equitable for workers to retain their
Social Welfare cheque, and have a deduction of the
appropriate amount made from their gross pay.
4. Para 12.
Non-payment under the scheme during periods of lay-off or
short-time would be unfair, as illness could occur at any
time.
5. Para 14.
It is reasonable to link the review-date of the sick-pay
scheme to that of the House Agreement. The two
Agreements are different and should be negotiated
separately.
6. Para 15.
Cover in the brewing-area should continue to be given by
brewers and assistant-brewers for the first 3 days of
illness. Flexibility on this matter would be accepted
from the fourth day of illness.
7. The level of sick-leave in the Company is very low and
the cost of implementation of the scheme as amended above
would be minimal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The P.E.S.P. provides for due regard to be had to the cost
and other implications of the introduction of a sick-pay
scheme. The introduction of a 26-week scheme would impose
enormous and unsustainable costs on the Company.
2. Cover for brewers on sick-leave should be provided by
packers. They are trained and capable of carrying out the
duties presently carried out by brewers. Such an arrangement
would enable packers to share in overtime resulting from
periods of sick-leave.
3. The offer of a 6-weeks scheme is in line with many schemes
in operation throughout industry.
4. Under the E.C. draft directive on the Organisation of
Working Time, employers will not be allowed to ask workers to
work in excess of a 48-hour week. Unless adequate and correct
cover arrangements are provided, difficulties will arise when
the draft directive is incorporated into Irish law.
5. The scheme is fair and reasonable, particularly as the
Company is willing to review it after one year, having
examined its impact on absenteeism levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that none of the changes sought by the
Union in the terms of the Sick-Pay Scheme proposed by the Company
and amended in accordance with the terms of the I.R.O.'s letter of
13th July, 1992 is sustainable.
The Court therefore recommends that the scheme as proposed and
amended above should be accepted by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________
6th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.