Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9318 Case Number: LCR14074 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KOSTAL (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning Company policy on the referral of workers to the company's doctor.
Recommendation:
5. It seems to the Court that the majority of employers and
employees would well understand and accept the circumstances under
which an employee would be referred to a company doctor.
Accordingly the Court is surprised and disappointed that this
matter has progressed to the need for it to be considered at a
Labour Court hearing.
The Court, while pleased to note the diligence with which the
Company accepts its obligations regarding the health and safety of
its workforce, is of the view that adequate provisions are
contained in the Company/Union agreement for such referrals. Any
other references to the company doctor should be reserved for
those occasions when it is considered desirable and necessary and
accepted by all concerned. Reference to the company doctor should
not in any case be as a substitute for appropriate management
decisions.
Accordingly the Court recommends that refernece to the company
doctor should be in accordance with the provisions of the
company/union agreement and on such other occasions where the
company and the employee accept such a reference is appropriate.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9318 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14074
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KOSTAL (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning Company policy on the referral of workers
to the company's doctor.
BACKGROUND:
2. The company is involved in the manufacture of electronic parts
for the automotive industry and employs approximately 600 workers.
Recently the parties negotiated a new Company/Union agreement
covering all aspects of pay and conditions of employment. The
present dispute concerns proposals which the company has made in
relation to the referral of workers to the company's doctor.
Clause 7.4 of the agreement (absence due to sickness) states:
"If an employee is absent from work due to sickness for more
than 3 working days a medical certificate must be sent to the
Personnel Department.......The Company reserves the right to
have an employee who is absent due to illness constantly or
for an extended period of time, examined by the Company
doctor".
The company claims that it also has the right to refer workers to
the company's doctor in the following circumstances.
(1) In the immediate aftermath of an accident at work.
(2) Apparent ill health which impairs ability to perform.
(3) Absenteeism of key individuals essential to continue
production.
(4) Persistent time keeping or early departure problems
which may be due to ill health.
(5) To ascertain a second opinion on certified absence.
(6) To certify fitness in the event of being promoted to
another position.
(7) To confirm medical fitness to work in particular areas
in the event of industrial transfer or a significant
change in work practices.
(8) For any other reason, the Company may deem fit apart
from Section 7.4 of the Company/Union Agreement. The
Company will inform the Union of its intent to refer an
employee.
The Union rejected the company's proposals. The issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on the 7th August, 1992. As no agreement was
reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th
January, 1993. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 24th
March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposals are totally unacceptable to the
Union and are in conflict with the company/union agreement
clause 7.4) which gives management the right to refer a worker
to the company doctor in the event of constant or long-term
illness. This clause is quite sufficient in itself to
adequately cover the company's requirements in cases of
absenteeism.
2. The Company has not given the union reasons to justify its
proposals. Management's action is without precedent and is in
conflict with normal industrial relations practice. The
present agreement covering sick absence has worked well in the
past. There is no justification to change it now.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 7.4 of the agreement does not preclude a referral
to the company's doctor in circumstances other than extended
or constant absence with which the Clause specifically deals.
Many of the examples outlined in the company's proposals are
both necessary and appropriate.
2. The company is entitled to have professional expertise at
its disposal to assess an employee's medical fitness for work,
regardless of his/her attendance. If there is any doubt about
workers' abilities to fulfil the requirement of their
contracts, referral to a medical practitioner can be most
appropriate and avoid needless disputes.
3. The company does not intend to abuse its rights in this
regard and merely insists on a reasonable commonsense approach
to the issue. If there is a specific difficulty it can be
raised by the Union through the grievance procedure.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It seems to the Court that the majority of employers and
employees would well understand and accept the circumstances under
which an employee would be referred to a company doctor.
Accordingly the Court is surprised and disappointed that this
matter has progressed to the need for it to be considered at a
Labour Court hearing.
The Court, while pleased to note the diligence with which the
Company accepts its obligations regarding the health and safety of
its workforce, is of the view that adequate provisions are
contained in the Company/Union agreement for such referrals. Any
other references to the company doctor should be reserved for
those occasions when it is considered desirable and necessary and
accepted by all concerned. Reference to the company doctor should
not in any case be as a substitute for appropriate management
decisions.
Accordingly the Court recommends that refernece to the company
doctor should be in accordance with the provisions of the
company/union agreement and on such other occasions where the
company and the employee accept such a reference is appropriate.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
12th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.