Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94388 Case Number: LCR14626 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BLARNEY WOOLLEN MILLS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim I: Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). Claim II: Sick Pay Scheme.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court finds
as follows on the two items in dispute.
(i) Clause 3 P.E.S.P.
The Court is of the view that no real negotiations have
taken place. Accordingly the Court recommends that the
parties meet and examine means of implementing the 3%
under the Clause on a cost neutral or effective basis.
The Court would see this examination concluding by the
end of January, 1995 and if not resolved the dispute may
be referred back to the Court for final recommendation.
(ii) Sick Leave
Clause 6 of the scheme as proposed be amended to allow
for 20 days in the first 3 years and 30 days in any year
thereafter. The scheme as so amended should be accepted
by the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94388 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14626
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BLARNEY WOOLLEN MILLS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim I: Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Claim II: Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the Retail Tourism Industry. It
employs approximately 129 workers at its shop/stores dispatch
in Blarney, Co. Cork. The workers concerned in the dispute
are employed by the Company as shop assistants, clerical and
stores workers.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for
an increase of 3% under the terms of the P.E.S.P. and the
introduction of a sick pay scheme.
Local level discussions took place but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 18th
November, 1993. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour
Court on 25th July, 1994 in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing
took place in Cork on 6th October, 1994.
CLAIM I: CLAUSE 3 OF P.E.S.P.
3. The Union has sought the 3% increase under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. since March, 1992. The Company rejected the claim
indicating that no such cost increases have been established
in the Retail Tourism Sector and concession of the 3% would
undermine its competitive position.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are paid considerably less than
other workers in similar employment both locally and
nationally.
2. The Union has indicated that it would treat favourably
any Company proposal which would enable it to absorb
some or all of the costs involved in the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Retail Tourism is a seasonal business. The operation in
Blarney is different from the regular weekly or daily
shopping. To be competitive the Company must ensure
that its costs do not rise at a pace faster than other
tourism retailers.
2. There is no valid reason for the Union's claim. The
additional costs which the claim would impose on the
Company have not been applied generally within the
retail sector in Ireland.
3. The Company has fulfilled its obligations under Clause I
of the P.E.S.P. If the retail tourism pay situation
under clause 3 changes, the Company would recognise the
principle of such a claim being reactivated. There is
no evidence available that the full terms of Clause I of
the P.E.S.P. have been applied throughout the Retail
Tourism Sector.
4. Only in circumstances where clause 3 is conceded by the
retail sector could the Company review the claim. To do
otherwise would put jobs at risk.
CLAIM II: SICK PAY SCHEME
4. On 22nd July, 1993, discussions took place between the
parties at which the Company put forward proposals for the
introduction of a sick pay scheme (details supplied to the
Court). The Company introduced the scheme with effect from
1st August, 1993. Subsequently the scheme was rejected by
the workers.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company introduced the sick pay scheme without the
agreement of the workers concerned.
2. The scheme is unacceptable to the workers for the
following reasons:-
(a) that workers must have completed one years service
before becoming eligible;
(b) the sick payment period of 15 days duration (in any
12 months period) is out of line with sick pay
schemes generally where a period of 6 weeks to 14
weeks is the norm;
(c) in some circumstances it may not be possible to
report sick absence to the Company before 12 noon
on the first day of absence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company introduced the sick pay scheme it
indicated that the operative date would be 1st August,
1993. When this deadline passed the scheme was
implemented. The changes sought by the Union had been
fully discussed and the reasons for their rejection were
made known to the Union at the meeting held on 22nd
July, 1993.
2. Clause 4 of P.E.S.P. clearly states that costs and other
implications of sick pay schemes shall be governed by
the capacity of the enterprise to absorb the costs
involved.
3. The scheme will have an annual cost to the Company which
will not be experienced by many of its competitors who
have no scheme at the present time.
4. In relation to the duration of benefit the Company had
to have regard to its experience on absenteeism prior to
the introduction of a sick pay scheme. The Company also
needed to be prudent in relation to maintaining its
business while at the same time making provision for a
basic sick pay scheme. A major factor for the Company
is that it has provided for a scheme which will be cost
increasing. Any extension of the period of benefit
could not be sustained by the Company having regard to
its difficult competitive position.
5. The waiting period in the scheme is three days. It is
linked with social welfare and is thus an integrated
sick pay scheme. The Company reject the Union's
suggestion that payment under the scheme should be made
from the first day of absence. Such a change would
increase costs and the risk of higher absenteeism. As
most sick pay schemes in Ireland have a three day
waiting period the Union request in this respect is
unrealistic.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court finds
as follows on the two items in dispute.
(i) Clause 3 P.E.S.P.
The Court is of the view that no real negotiations have
taken place. Accordingly the Court recommends that the
parties meet and examine means of implementing the 3%
under the Clause on a cost neutral or effective basis.
The Court would see this examination concluding by the
end of January, 1995 and if not resolved the dispute may
be referred back to the Court for final recommendation.
(ii) Sick Leave
Clause 6 of the scheme as proposed be amended to allow
for 20 days in the first 3 years and 30 days in any year
thereafter. The scheme as so amended should be accepted
by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.