Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95588 Case Number: LCR14966 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KINGSPAN INSULATION LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the details of a Sick Pay Scheme to be introduced.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions recommends the
following Sick Pay Scheme be accepted and implemented.
1. That no benefit be payable for the first three days of
absence.
2. That the benefit be as follows:
(a) for the first week 80% of earnings including shift pay
where applicable, less social welfare benefits,
(b) for weeks 2-6 inclusive 100% of earnings including shift
pay where applicable, less social welfare benefits,
(c) for a further 5 weeks 50% of earnings including 50% of
shift pay where applicable less social welfare benefits.
3. These benefits will apply in each 12 month period. The first
12 months will commence on the date of final agreement on the
proposed scheme.
4. The Sick Pay Scheme will be subject to the existing Company
disciplinary and grievance procedures.
5. The conditions that the Company proposed to apply to the
payment of benefit will be modified and revised in the light
of paragraph 4 above.
6. The Sick Pay Scheme to be operated on a trial basis for the
first year and to be reviewed at the end of this period.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95588 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14966
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
KINGSPAN INSULATION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the details of a Sick Pay Scheme to be
introduced.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures insulation products and employs 15
permanent and some part-time employees. It is part of the
insulation division of the Kingspan Group. In July, 1994 the
Union submitted a claim for the introduction of a Sick Pay
Scheme under Clause 4 of the Programme for Competitiveness
and Work (PCW). The parties could not reach agreement at
local level discussions and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were
held in February, April and June, 1995. Following the first
conciliation conference the Company put forward the following
proposals for a Sick Pay Scheme:-
(a) No payment for the first 3 days of absence.
(b) Week 1 - 40% of basic pay
Weeks 2,3 - full basic pay
Weeks 4,5 - 50% of basic pay.
The proposal was rejected by the Union.
Following the second conciliation conference the Industrial
Relations Officer formulated the following proposals as a
basis for settlement
(a) No benefit for the first day of absence.
(b) Week 1 - 80% of earnings to include shift payment
where applicable.
(c) 5 weeks at full pay to include shift payment where
applicable.
(d) 5 weeks at half pay to include 50% of shift payment
where applicable.
The Company rejected this proposal and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 9th October, 1995. A Court hearing was
held on the 2nd November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since mid 1994 the Union has sought to negotiate a Sick
Pay Scheme in accordance with the PCW. The Company has
used unnecessary delaying tactics in not replying to the
Union letter until November, 1994, allowing three
conciliation conferences to take place, agreeing to
recommend the Industrial Relations Officer's proposals
and then rejecting those proposals.
2. The proposals, whilst acceptable to the Union are the
basis of a very basic scheme.
3. The Company is a "stand-alone" within the Parent Group.
A separate negotiated agreement exists between the
Company and the Union with no cross-over of conditions
between any Company in the Group.
4. Other employees in the Company i.e., clerical, and
administration already enjoy a Sick Pay Scheme.
5. The Company is very profitable and has made substantial
payments to three directors of the insulation division
(details supplied to the Court). The Company cannot,
therefore, deny workers a Sick Pay Scheme which provides
a proportion of basic pay for a limited period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is anxious to introduce a Sick Pay Scheme,
however, any negotiations under a Clause 4 PCW must take
account of the Company's competitive position, its
ability to absorb the costs involved and the possible
implications of any Sick Pay Scheme for attendance
levels.
2. The Company at conciliation did not give a commitment to
accept the Industrial Relations Officer's proposal.
Management could not accept the Industrial Relations
Officer's proposal as it provided for:-
(1) Payment from Day 1 of any absence.
(2) Payment for a 12 week period and at a very much
higher level of cost to the Company.
3. The Company is currently facing a number of difficulties
which preclude the introduction of a Sick Pay scheme
with an extended period of cover and payment from Day 1
as sought by the Union. The Company is facing very
severe competition against external and internal
companies for business. Its labour costs are
approximately 20% higher than labour costs in a sister
plant. It is facing increasingly reduced margins.
4. The Company's offer is very reasonable and falls within
the norms in the industry. Research shows only 60% of
Company's provide any form of Sick Pay Scheme for hourly
paid workers. The majority of these schemes provide for
sliding scale payments over a period of approximately 6
weeks similar to Company's offer. The regional norm,
allows for payment after the 3rd day of the absence
recognising the need to build in a disincentive for
casual absence.
An analysis on a quarterly basis in 1994 of the Company
absence (excluding long-term cases) shows that the vast
majority of absence was made up of absences of less than
4 weeks duration and casual daily absences. This is
very adequately provided for by the Company's current
proposal. The Company's Scheme balances the need to
provide a Sick Pay Scheme to support genuine illness in
line with PCW and also protects the Company's
competitive position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions recommends the
following Sick Pay Scheme be accepted and implemented.
1. That no benefit be payable for the first three days of
absence.
2. That the benefit be as follows:
(a) for the first week 80% of earnings including shift pay
where applicable, less social welfare benefits,
(b) for weeks 2-6 inclusive 100% of earnings including shift
pay where applicable, less social welfare benefits,
(c) for a further 5 weeks 50% of earnings including 50% of
shift pay where applicable less social welfare benefits.
3. These benefits will apply in each 12 month period. The first
12 months will commence on the date of final agreement on the
proposed scheme.
4. The Sick Pay Scheme will be subject to the existing Company
disciplinary and grievance procedures.
5. The conditions that the Company proposed to apply to the
payment of benefit will be modified and revised in the light
of paragraph 4 above.
6. The Sick Pay Scheme to be operated on a trial basis for the
first year and to be reviewed at the end of this period.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th November, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.