Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94271 Case Number: LCR14598 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ABS PUMPS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a sick-pay scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and also
notes the agreement reached at conciliation in March, 1993 with
regard to the introduction of a sick-pay scheme as provided for in
Clause 4 of the PESP.
Taking into account the terms of Clause 4 and the progress of the
talks to date, the Court has concluded that further local talks
are desirable to enable both parties to examine the "capacity of
the enterprise to absorb the costs involved" and, in particular,
the possibility of arriving at an agreement whereby the impact of
additional costs can be reduced by the introduction of new work
practices, etc.
As the agreement at conciliation referred to above included a
commencement date of July, 1994, the Court would expect these
further talks to be concluded by 31st December, 1994.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94271 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14598
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ABS PUMPS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a sick-pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is involved in manufacturing and has been
based in Wexford since 1973. The Company deals with
only one Union but within a 3 sectional framework (shop
floor (260), staff (80), craft (29 and apprentices)).
The present dispute is with the craft section.
2. An agreement made in March, 1993, under Clause 3 of the
PESP provided for discussions on the introduction of a
sick-pay scheme, as follow:-
"The Company is prepared to discuss, in principle and
without prejudice to the details, the introduction of
a sick-pay scheme, as provided for in Clause 4 of the
PESP. Subject to agreement on the terms of such a
scheme, the scheme would come into operation with
effect from 1st July, 1994."
Several meetings took place at local level. There were
a number of issues on which no progress could be made:
the level and duration of benefit; the question of
contributory versus. non-contributory scheme; the issue
of "waiting days" where no payment would apply.
3. The Union is seeking a sick-pay scheme which maintains
income at no loss for a fixed period of time.
Specifically, it quoted the scheme applying to the staff
group within the Company, which is non-contributory and
maintains income at full rate for 13 weeks and half pay
for a further 13 weeks.
4. Following discussions with the Union the Company put
forward an outline document of a scheme. While some of
the areas covered were not contentious, the level and
duration of benefit proposed (initially 15% plus Social
Welfare Benefits, max. 10 days) was not acceptable to
the Union.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 8th
December, 1993 and 24th February, 1994. Following the
initial conciliation conference the Company modified its
position somewhat and put forward a proposal whereby it
would look at the net situation, and maintain income at
50%.
6. No agreement was possible at conciliation and on 9th
May, 1994, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court investigation took place in
Wexford on 18th October, 1994 (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers are seeking the same sick-pay scheme
enjoyed by the staff section. The scheme will be easily
operated as it is already in operation within the
Company. In addition the level of benefits being sought
compares reasonably well with other sick-pay schemes in
good employments.
2. Absenteeism within the group is low and therefore the
cost of the new scheme will be low. The Company's
proposals are unacceptable particularly in relation to
the level of benefit and the duration of payments. The
Company requires a high level of skill from its craft
workers. It is in its best interests to provide an
adequate sick-pay package to retain skilled workers.
3. The Company is, for the first time at the Labour Court,
introducing the issue of "World Class Manufacturing".
This issue is the subject of separate negotiations and
it has never been linked to the sick-pay claim. The
Company must address the issue which has been referred
to the Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. To secure its future, the Company's primary objective is
to reach the World Class Manufacturing standard. A
framework of understanding had been reached between the
Company and 90% of its workforce. The Company and all
the workers involved have been moving towards continuous
improvement since January, 1994.
2. Despite lengthy discussion with the craft section (10%
of the workforce), no agreement has been reached on what
has now become the primary objective of the Company's
operations. The Company cannot continue discussing
increased benefits with workers who have refused the
invitation to participate in securing their own future.
3. The Company, as per clauses 4 in the PESP and PCW, have
discussed in principle the possible introduction of a
sick-pay scheme. There has been no parallel discussion
on a framework agreement for the introduction of World
Class Manufacturing. The Company cannot now progress
the sick-pay scheme claim due to "cost and other
implications" (Clauses 4 of PESP and the PCW).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and also
notes the agreement reached at conciliation in March, 1993 with
regard to the introduction of a sick-pay scheme as provided for in
Clause 4 of the PESP.
Taking into account the terms of Clause 4 and the progress of the
talks to date, the Court has concluded that further local talks
are desirable to enable both parties to examine the "capacity of
the enterprise to absorb the costs involved" and, in particular,
the possibility of arriving at an agreement whereby the impact of
additional costs can be reduced by the introduction of new work
practices, etc.
As the agreement at conciliation referred to above included a
commencement date of July, 1994, the Court would expect these
further talks to be concluded by 31st December, 1994.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.