Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93453 Case Number: LCR14179 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH FERRIES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rate of contribution to the Permanent Health Insurance (P.H.I.) Scheme.
Recommendation:
5. It is the view of the Court that the cost of maintaining the
present permanent Health Insurance Scheme is prohibitive.
The Recommendation of the Court is that the parties meet
immediately to review jointly all aspects of the Permanent Health
Insurance Scheme, including alternative quotations and to set down
conditions and/or payments which will give effect to lower
premiums.
The agreed premium to be shared equally between management and
employees.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93453 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14179
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH FERRIES
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of contribution to the Permanent
Health Insurance (P.H.I.) Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1979, the sick pay scheme for Ships' Officers was
replaced by a P.H.I. scheme. The terms of the scheme provided
for a total premium of 1% of salary. This was paid on the
basis of 0.5% by the Ships' Officers and 0.5% by the Company.
In 1989, the premium was increased to 1.6% of salary.
Following conciliation conferences it was agreed that the
workers would pay 0.8% and the Company would pay 0.8%. It was
further agreed that in return the Company could charter a
relief vessel.
2. The Insurance Company which operates the P.H.I. informed
the Company in April, 1993 that premiums would increase
between 6.5% and 9.% of salary with effect from 1st August,
1993, with a further review on 1st August, 1994.
3. A dispute arose between the parties as to the breakdown
in payments between the Company and the workers. The Union's
held that a liability of 50:50 had been established and that
it expected the Company to pay half of the new premium. The
Company would not consider raising its payment beyond the 0.8%
of salary which it already paid.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 30th
July, 1993. No progress was made at conciliation and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 3rd August, 1993
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 18th August, 1993and
a letter Recommendation issued on 20th August, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The PHI scheme was introduced in 1979. It provided for
the payment of a total premium of 1% of salary which was
evenly divided between the Company and the workers. In 1989,
when the premium was increased to 1.6% of salary, the already
agreed principal of a 50:50 liability continued and the
Company increased its payments to 0.8% of salary.
2. The Union is seeking that the existing Agreement of
50:50 be confirmed by the Company. If the union receives this
commitment it is prepared to enter into discussions with
management and the Insurance Company on the overall scheme.
The workers are not in a position to afford the proposed level
of increased premium.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company agreed to pay half of the annual premium
when the PHI shcme was introduced. In 1989, the Company's
contribution was increased to 0.8% in return for agreement on
the chartering of a relief vessel. The Company rejects the
Union's claim and is not prepared to increase its current
level of contribution.
2. The Company cannot afford to increase its level of
contribution as it is conducting a major cost saving and
control exercise to counter a difficult trading position
(details supplied). The claim is cost increasing and is
precluded under the terms of the P.E.S.P. The increases are
being imposed by the Insurance Company because of the high
level of claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is the view of the Court that the cost of maintaining the
present permanent Health Insurance Scheme is prohibitive.
The Recommendation of the Court is that the parties meet
immediately to review jointly all aspects of the Permanent Health
Insurance Scheme, including alternative quotations and to set down
conditions and/or payments which will give effect to lower
premiums.
The agreed premium to be shared equally between management and
employees.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
4th November, 1993 ------------
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Jerome Forde, Court Secretary