Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93488 Case Number: LCR14435 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: QUALITY PLASTICS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the re-introduction of a sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and oral arguments of the
parties, the Court recommends that both parties accept the
Companys sick pay proposals with the following amendments in
respect of sick pay for the five single day absences:-
First single day @ #25
Second single day @ #20
Third single day @ #15
Fourth single day @ #10
Fifth single day @ #10
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93488 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14435
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
QUALITY PLASTICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the re-introduction of a sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Quality Plastics Limited is involved in the manufacture
of plastics, water pipes, asbestos sheeting and damp-
course for the construction industry. Since 1980,
workers in the Company enjoyed a sick pay scheme as part
of their contract of employment. In 1989, this scheme
was modified to the satisfaction of both sides. In
1992, the Company advised the Union that it was
withdrawing the scheme as a result of abuse and
subsequently did so on 1st January, 1993.
2. The Company formulated new proposals in respect of the
sick pay scheme and an attendance bonus scheme which
specifically addressed the problem of single day
absences. Talks on the revised scheme centred on the
appropriate rate of pay for single day absences but
agreement could not be reached. The issue was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on 15th March, 1993. Agreement
could not be reached and the matter was referred by the
Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 18th
August, 1993. The Court investigated the dispute on
13th April, 1994 in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The sick pay scheme was being abused by a minority of
workers and had the Company taken disciplinary action
against these individuals, the Union would have
supported it.
2. When the modified scheme was accepted in 1989, the Union
put a proposal to the Company that a joint committee be
set up to monitor the scheme but this was not acceptable
to the Company.
3. The scheme proposed by the Company as a replacement is
not good enough to replace the existing one.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no obligation, legal or otherwise, on the
Company to re-introduce a sick pay scheme. The
Company's proposals in this respect are generous and
atypical in that they address and offer payment for up
to five single day absences.
2. One day absences prove the most difficult to control and
frequently are non-deserving of support from the
Company. The Company has sought to address the problem
through an attendance bonus scheme.
3. S.I.P.T.U. No. 4 Branch members and craft workers have
accepted the Company proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and oral arguments of the
parties, the Court recommends that both parties accept the
Companys sick pay proposals with the following amendments in
respect of sick pay for the five single day absences:-
First single day @ #25
Second single day @ #20
Third single day @ #15
Fourth single day @ #10
Fifth single day @ #10
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th May, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./M.M. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.