Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94640 Case Number: LCR14653 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MOTOR SERVICES LTD. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;UNION OF MOTOR TRADE TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Improvement in the Sick Pay Scheme.
Recommendation:
Having considered the further submissions from the parties the
Court recommends that the Company's final offer be accepted by the
Unions.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94640 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14653
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MOTOR SERVICES LTD.
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
UNION OF MOTOR TRADE TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Improvement in the Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. Motor Services Ltd. is part of the O'Flaherty Group and is
involved in the distribution and servicing of motor vehicles.
It has 5 garages, 4 in Dublin and 1 in Cork. There are 3
garages concerned in this dispute for improvement in the Sick
Pay Scheme. There are 85 employees involved of which 40 are
hourly paid and 45 are staff members. The dispute only
concerns the hourly paid workers. The dispute was the
subject of a Labour Court hearing and in Recommendation No.
LCR14353 which was issued in March, 1994 the Court
recommended as follows:-
"In regard to the claim under Sick Pay the Court, while
noting the comments on the PCW (yet to be ratified) in
the employer's submission, is not satisfied that the
Union has been given sufficient opportunity to
negotiate meaningfully within the terms of that Clause
4. The Court therefore recommends that such
negotiations do take place. Should agreement not be
reached or the PCW not be ratified the parties may refer
this matter back to the Court for recommendation."
The parties had a number of further meetings at which the
Company proposed to substantially increase the Sick Pay
benefit from #15 per week to #90 per week for the first 2
weeks of illness and #60 per week for the next 24 weeks of
illness. The contributions amounted to #1.75 per employee
with an equal contribution by the Company. This was the
amount required to fund the proposed benefits. The Union
could not agree the 50/50 split in the cost of funding the
Scheme. The Labour Court agreed to a further hearing and
investigated the dispute on 13th December, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a wide disparity in the Sick Pay entitlements
of manual/craft workers vis a vis non-manual grades who
form the majority of workers in the Company. This is
discriminatory and unfair to the workers concerned.
2. Sick Pay Schemes are not standardised in industry
generally and the majority of workers are covered by
such schemes. The Company is one of the largest
employers in the motor trade and it can well afford to
provide reasonable income protection for all its workers
during periods of illness.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company states that it is prepared to substantially
increase the Sick Pay benefits from #15 per week to #90
per week for the first 2 weeks and #60 per week for the
next 24 weeks of illness, It is proposed that the
Scheme be funded on a 50/50 basis. The Company will
contribute at a rate of #1.75 per week with an equal
amount paid by each employee.
2. The Company considers that the proposed improvement in
the Sick Pay Scheme is generous and should be accepted
by the Unions. It is satisfied that there is no
justification why the cost should not be shared equally
as this is the norm in the Retail Motor Industry. In a
majority of cases comparable motor retailers have no
Sick Pay arrangements and the remainder have schemes
which are funded on a 50/50 basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the further submissions from the parties the
Court recommends that the Company's final offer be accepted by the
Unions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th January, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.