Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95156 Case Number: LCR14740 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED (I.G.B.) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the revision of sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
While mindful of the very competitive situation of the Company's
business and taking into account the written and oral submissions,
the Court is of the view that there is merit in the Union's claim.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties enter into
negotiations to level the two Schemes concerned on a phased basis
over time.
The Court considers that these negotiations should take into
account the cost involved and address other issues raised at the
hearing which would offset cost increases.
The Court also recommends that in view of the Company's expressed
concern at the level of absenteeism that a joint Management/Union
monitoring committee be set up to monitor the Scheme and address
any perceived abuses, which would have a damaging affect on the
Company.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95156 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14740
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY LIMITED (I.G.B.)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the revision of sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 400 workers in the production of glass
containers.
In February, 1994, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of
approximately 300 workers under the terms of the Programme
for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) for the introduction of a
revised sick pay scheme. The Union's claim is based on a
sick pay scheme currently in place for controllers, transport
and forklift drivers employed by the Company who receive full
pay for the first 4 weeks of sick absence and .50 pay for the
next 4 weeks.
Under the sick pay scheme currently in place the workers
concerned in the dispute receive #6 per week for the first 12
weeks of sick absence and thereafter #4.50 per week.
Local level discussions took place at which the Company
proposed:-
A. Amend sick pay/long term disability scheme.
B. Examine a situation of more structured time off and
increase/improve the self cover arrangement including a
reduction in base manning.
The Company's proposals were unacceptable to the Union and
the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Two conciliation conferences took place but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
27th February, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on
3rd April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Sick Pay Scheme in place for the workers concerned
was introduced 40 years ago and has remained unchanged
ever since. The scheme is out of line with sick pay
schemes in industry generally and with other schemes in
operation within the I.G.B.
2. The workers concerned have made a considerable
contribution to the Company's current healthy financial
position. In the circumstances, the Union's claim for a
sick pay scheme similar to that which applies to
controllers, transport and forklift drivers is
justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts that within the context of Clause 4
of the PCW it is obliged to examine ways of meeting the
aspirations of employees regarding this claim. This can
only be done on the basis that it will not increase the
cost of what is an extremely good overall package which
includes good rates of pay.
2. The Company is prepared to consider a revised sick pay
arrangement but cannot do so if increased costs are
involved. The way forward has to be through a
self-financing proposal either by re-jigging the present
package or alternatively reaching an agreement on
structured time-off and improving/increasing the self
cover arrangements including a reduction in base manning
levels.
3. The Company is operating in a very competitive
environment with pressure on prices coming from other
glass companies.
4. The average selling price of the Company's product in
1995 is the same as it was in 1986. In the same period
labour costs have increased by 60%. In this environment
it is in everyone's interest to examine means of
reducing costs rather than increasing them, which
concession of this claim would do.
5. The Company is concerned at the present level of absence
and the effects an improved scheme would have on
absenteeism. It is estimated that for every 1% increase
in absence levels, the Company's costs would rise by
#80,000 to #90,000. This is not acceptable to the
Company under any circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
While mindful of the very competitive situation of the Company's
business and taking into account the written and oral submissions,
the Court is of the view that there is merit in the Union's claim.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties enter into
negotiations to level the two Schemes concerned on a phased basis
over time.
The Court considers that these negotiations should take into
account the cost involved and address other issues raised at the
hearing which would offset cost increases.
The Court also recommends that in view of the Company's expressed
concern at the level of absenteeism that a joint Management/Union
monitoring committee be set up to monitor the Scheme and address
any perceived abuses, which would have a damaging affect on the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.