Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9470 Case Number: LCR14468 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MEDITE OF EUROPE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the proposed revision of the Sick-Pay Scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions made by the parties
makes the following recommendations.
1. Sick-Pay
That the Sick-Pay Scheme be amended as follows:-
100% of the difference between basic net pay and Social
Welfare entitlement for the first two weeks.
75% of the difference for the next 3 weeks.
50% of the difference for the next 12 weeks.
25% of the difference for the next 9 weeks.
2. P.E.S.P.
On acceptance of the recommendation 0.75% be reinstated
by the Company.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9470 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14468
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MEDITE OF EUROPE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed revision of the Sick-Pay
Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufacturers medium-density fibre board and
employs 169 people of whom 102 are members of S.I.P.T.U.
and 20 are members of the T.E.E.U. As part of the
negotiations under the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress the Company agreed to introduce a sick-pay
scheme covering factory operatives. The Scheme was to
be funded by the Company on the basis that 0.75% of the
3% payable under the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
would be offset against part of the cost.
2. Basic benefits of the Scheme are as follows:-
1. Net basic pay (less tax rebate) for maximum
duration of 6 weeks in a 12 month period.
2. No payment for first 8 hours.
3. Payment up to 26 weeks for work-related illness.
3. In January, 1993 the Company advised staff that the high
levels of absenteeism and the consequent cost of the
Scheme was a source of serious concern.
Following local discussions a proposed revision to the
Scheme, reducing the level of benefit payable was put to
ballot (details supplied). The proposal provided for
the Scheme to be totally funded by the company, with the
0.75% 'retained' element under the P.E.S.P. being
applied to basic salaries, and was recommended for
acceptance by the Unions. The revision was accepted by
the T.E.E.U., but was rejected by the S.I.P.T.U.
members.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences took place on
28th September and 7th December, 1993. As part of the
negotiations the Union introduced the following
proposal:-
5 weeks at 100% Vs the Company's 75%
12 weeks at 75% Vs the Company's 50%
25 weeks at 50% Vs the Company's 25%
5. The Company rejected the proposal having reviewed the
Scheme and discovered that absenteeism levels were worse
than initially considered (details supplied). No
progress could be made and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 1st February, 1994, under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 10th May, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. Very soon after the introduction of the Sick-Pay Scheme,
it became evident that the cost of the Scheme was
substantially higher than anticipated or budgeted for,
and the number and duration of claims was higher than
might have been expected (details supplied). It is now
imperative that the Scheme be revised to bring it within
more reasonable cost parameters. The need for revision
has been accepted by both Unions.
2. The revised Scheme compares well with the generality of
Schemes in operation within industry. Discussions have
now gone on for over 12 months and the Company cannot
afford to drag out the dispute any further. It has been
very positive in discussions with the Union, to the
extent of agreeing to pay the 0.75% of Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. which had originally been offset.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Until 1992, the Company had no sick-pay scheme. In view
of the long time it took to agree a Scheme, the Union is
unwilling to give up its hard-won concessions. The
Sick-Pay Scheme was negotiated in good faith and the
Union would have expected the Company to have done the
same and quantified the costs for all eventualities.
2. The Union is prepared to discuss some changes to the
Scheme but it is unreasonable to expect it to go as far
as the Company is seeking. It is important to note that
prior to any Sick-Pay Scheme, the workers used holidays
to take sick-leave. This is readily agreed by the
Company and as a result overtime was a feature of
working.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions made by the parties
makes the following recommendations.
1. Sick-Pay
That the Sick-Pay Scheme be amended as follows:-
100% of the difference between basic net pay and Social
Welfare entitlement for the first two weeks.
75% of the difference for the next 3 weeks.
50% of the difference for the next 12 weeks.
25% of the difference for the next 9 weeks.
2. P.E.S.P.
On acceptance of the recommendation 0.75% be reinstated
by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th June, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.