Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95189 Case Number: LCR14770 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROADSTONE COMPANIES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVE UNION |
Sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that, as a result of the examination of the
Pension and Sick Pay Scheme, the Company introduced a benefit to
the Pension Scheme of advantage to the employees. The Court,
however, notes that the Sick Pay Scheme has not been revised since
1967 and finds that the scheme falls far short of the arrangements
which apply in comparable Companies.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties negotiate an
acceptable scheme with a view to introducing it as soon as
possible. The negotiations to be completed on or before 31st
July, 1995.
In these negotiations, the parties should seek to include
mechanisms which will contain costs and contribute to a reduction
in absenteeism levels. The scheme should be introduced on a trial
basis and monitored to ensure any difficulties are resolved and
that the scheme meets the criteria laid down.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95189 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14770
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ROADSTONE COMPANIES
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Unions on behalf of
approximately 480 workers for an improvement in the
Companies' sick pay scheme.
In 1992, the Unions lodged a claim with the Companies which
involved a number of issues. One of the issues was a review
of the 1985 Productivity Agreement, including a review of the
pension and sick pay schemes. A second issue was the payment
of the 3% under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The claim was the subject of
Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR13761, which issued on 4th
September, 1992. The recommendation noted "the Company's
agreement to an examination of the pension and sick pay
schemes".
No agreement was reached despite a number of meetings at
local level. The sick pay scheme for the workers concerned
is at present:-
(a) No payment for first 3 days
(b) #12 per week for first 26 weeks
(c) #6 per week for next 26 weeks
No payment in respect of absence after 52 weeks.
Workers contribute 13p per week.
The dispute (including the pension scheme) was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences
took place on 24th March, 1994, and 24th November, 1994.
Again, no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 20th March, 1995, under Section 26(1),
Industrial Relations Acts, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 8th May, 1995 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Companies did not review the sick pay scheme despite
the agreement referred to in LCR13761. The current sick
pay scheme has not been revised since 1967.
2. The Companies concerned are subsidiaries of Cement
Roadstone Holdings plc. (C.R.H.) and constitute a major
proportion of their activities in the Republic of
Ireland. C.R.H. has been very profitable financially
(details supplied to the Court). Figures for 1994 show
that the contribution of workers in the Republic of
Ireland has been greater than workers in Britain,
Northern Ireland, Europe and the United States. Whilst
profits in the Republic of Ireland have increased, the
workforce has decreased.
3. The workers concerned are exposed to very unhealthly
working conditions outdoors, compared to the clerical
workers in the Companies who work for the most part
indoors. The clerical workers enjoy a sick pay scheme
of full salary for six months and half salary for a
further six months.
COMPANIES' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Companies are involved in a highly competitive
market. New competitors continue to enter the markets,
particularly from the North of Ireland and the United
Kingdom. The Companies will only retain their business
if they continue to remain competitive. Employee costs
within the Companies are between #2,000 and #6,000 per
annum greater than the majority of their competitors.
This places the Companies at a disadvantage to
competitors. Any increase to labour costs, by way of an
improved sick pay scheme, would put the Companies at a
further disadvantage. Absenteeism is also a problem.
If the Companies are not competitive it would put jobs
at risk.
2. The Companies have fulfilled all obligations under the
P.E.S.P. and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work
(P.C.W.). In November, 1994, the Companies improved
their pension scheme. The improved pension scheme
largely benefited the workers concerned. Many of the
Companies' competitors do not have pension or sick pay
schemes. The Companies have honoured their agreement to
examine the pension and sick pay scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that, as a result of the examination of the
Pension and Sick Pay Scheme, the Company introduced a benefit to
the Pension Scheme of advantage to the employees. The Court,
however, notes that the Sick Pay Scheme has not been revised since
1967 and finds that the scheme falls far short of the arrangements
which apply in comparable Companies.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties negotiate an
acceptable scheme with a view to introducing it as soon as
possible. The negotiations to be completed on or before 31st
July, 1995.
In these negotiations, the parties should seek to include
mechanisms which will contain costs and contribute to a reduction
in absenteeism levels. The scheme should be introduced on a trial
basis and monitored to ensure any difficulties are resolved and
that the scheme meets the criteria laid down.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd May, 1995 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.