Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95528 Case Number: LCR14972 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CAHILL MAY ROBERTS (Represented by IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for improvements in the sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered all of the issues raised and
noting that the Company at its discretion is prepared to assist
employees, who because of long term illness have exhausted their
entitlements under the sick pay scheme, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95528 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14972
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: CAHILL MAY ROBERTS
REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION
and
SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for improvements in the sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union submitted its claim early in 1995. It concerns
approximately 30 salaried staff including Branch Manager,
Warehouse Manager, Office Manager, Buyers, Senior Accounts
Executives. They have service ranging up to 35 years. The
current scheme (fully integrated with the Social Welfare System)
provides for three months sick pay at full pay. The Union claims
that the scheme should be improved as follows:-
0-5 years 13 weeks
5-10 years 26 weeks
10-15 years 39 weeks
15 years 52 weeks.
Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held
on the 25th August, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th September,
1995. A Court hearing was held on the 26th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current sick pay scheme provides minimal cover and
is out of line with what would be expected from a large
profitable Company particularly for staff at a senior
level.
2. The Union's proposal is reasonable and would involve
minimal cost for the Company. The sick records of the
workers concerned are exceptionally good. None has
exceeded the 13 weeks limit except two very exceptional
cases in recent years.
3. Most employers recognise that there is a greater
obligation to staff with long service but in this
Company, whether a worker has one or thirty years
service the sick pay entitlement is 13 weeks. Staff at
this level in the Company are expected to have a very
close identity with the Company and make contributions
above the norm. It is reasonable that they should have
a better scheme in the unfortunate event of a serious
illness.
4. The workers concerned are unique among staff in the
Company. They are expected to be more flexible than
other groups in the amount of time and effort put into
their jobs. Their salaries are all-inclusive, overtime
payments are not made to them and they are expected to
forego tea breaks, encroach on lunch breaks, or work
after hours. This feature separates them from other
workers all of whom qualify for overtime, etc.
Adequate cover should be provided for them should they
be out of work through illness for longer than 13
weeks.
5. The Union's proposal of a service related sick benefit
scheme is equitable in that it differentiates between a
worker with one year's service and one with 30 years'
service. Standards of sick pay schemes throughout the
private sector very but the principle of a service
related approach is well established as is cover in
excess of 13 weeks.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The current sick pay scheme in place is a reasonable
one. It is in line with, and in some cases superior
to, schemes applied by direct competitor companies.
(Details supplied to the Court).
2. Any adjustment to the scheme would create a serious
inequity within the Company. There is already a
differential between the sick pay scheme that applies
to waged and salaried staff with the latter having an
advantage of 5 additional weeks at full pay. The
Company cannot increase this difference.
3. The Company has shown in the past that where specific
cases of genuine hardship exist, it is prepared to
treat individual cases on merit and therefore all
eventualities are catered for. This was demonstrated
recently when a worker was out sick for over three
months and the Company agreed to pay half pay for a
further three months without obliging the worker to
return Social Welfare cheques
4. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the
terms of the PCW. Under the PCW improvements in a sick
pay scheme can only be brought where the Union can
demonstrate that the incumbent scheme is substantially
out of line with the appropriate standards in
comparable employments. The sick benefit scheme
operated by the Company compares favourably with other
scheme within comparable employments. The Court in a
previous recommendation has upheld this argument
(LCR14850 refers).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered all of the issues raised and
noting that the Company at its discretion is prepared to assist
employees, who because of long term illness have exhausted their
entitlements under the sick pay scheme, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
21st November, 1995 _______________
T O'D/U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.