Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95393 Case Number: LCR14912 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TAYTO LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the terms relating to the introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme for general operatives.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties makes the following recommendations:-
(a) The proposed scheme to be introduced as outlined.
(b) the level of absence to be reviewed in relation to the
non-payment for the first three days when a significant
reduction in sickness levels has been demonstrated or in two
years time at least.
While the issue of non-return of forms to implement the Scheme was
raised at the hearing the Court is clear that the Scheme cannot be
applied to those who do not supply the necessary information.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95393 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14912
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TAYTO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the terms relating to the introduction of
a Sick Pay Scheme for general operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1992 the Company and the Union entered discussion on the
introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme as provided for under the
terms of the PESP. A number of meetings were held at local
level and under the auspices of the Labour Relations
Commission in 1993 and 1994. The parties finally agreed the
terms of the Scheme with the exception of the clause which
stipulates that no payment will be made for the first three
days of any illness. The Union rejected this clause. The
Company could not countenance amending it. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 28th March, 1995.
Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 4th July, 1995. A Court hearing was
held on the 25th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are a significant number of conditions attached to
the Sick Pay Scheme which the Union has accepted.
However, the workers concerned take exception to Clause
1 which provides that no payment is made for three days.
This is totally unacceptable. The scheme for clerical
and sales staff in the Company is not subject to this
restriction.
2. The issue in dispute is a major problem and as a result
implementation of the Scheme has been delayed. The
Company is progressive and profitable. There is no
reason why it cannot eliminate the three day no-pay
provision and implement the Scheme forthwith. Many
comparable employments have such schemes in operation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company from the outset put forward meaningful
proposals and is anxious to implement a sick pay scheme.
A vital component of this scheme must include a clause
that there will be no payment for the first three days
of any illness. The primary objective of this position
relates to the comparatively high levels of absenteeism
among factory employees. A significant number of
companies who operate sick pay schemes do not pay for
the first three days of any absence. The reason for so
doing is to control absenteeism.
2. The objective of the proposed sick pay scheme is to
prevent hardship for workers who get sick and are not
able to attend work on a long term basis. The thrust of
the scheme is long term. The other two groups within
the plant, i.e. clerical/sales, have absenteeism levels
at a much lower level than the workers concerned. For
many years the clerical/sales scheme had a provision
that payment would not be made for the first three says
of any illness. Only in recent years was this condition
removed.
3. The Court in two previous recommendations recommended
that there should be no payment for the first three days
(LCR's 10616, 13686 refer).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties makes the following recommendations:-
(a) The proposed scheme to be introduced as outlined.
(b) the level of absence to be reviewed in relation to the
non-payment for the first three days when a significant
reduction in sickness levels has been demonstrated or in two
years time at least.
While the issue of non-return of forms to implement the Scheme was
raised at the hearing the Court is clear that the Scheme cannot be
applied to those who do not supply the necessary information.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th October, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.