Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95336 Case Number: LCR14926 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AWL LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the provision of a sick-pay scheme by the Company.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions.
The provision of a Company sick-pay scheme is to provide
protection for employees against financial hardship during periods
of absence from work due to illness. Whilst the Court has
sympathy with the employees concerned in this case the claim for
benefit to be defined as net weekly pay inclusive of regular bonus
earnings is cost increasing and as such is contrary to the
provisions of the PCW.
Accordingly the Court considers it inappropriate that the claim
should be pursued at this time.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95336 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14926
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AWL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the provision of a sick-pay scheme by the
Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 30th March, 1994 the Union made a claim for the
introduction of a written sick-pay scheme. The Company
had an unwritten sick-pay scheme in place for 10 years.
Local negotiations concentrated on negotiating the
written terms of the scheme.
2. The Company defines benefit as net weekly basic pay.
Negotiations reached an impasse when the Company refused
to concede a Union claim that the workers' productivity
bonus be included in calculating net weekly basic pay.
The claim concerns 35 workers.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 2nd
May, 1995. No further progress was possible by
conciliation. On 2nd June, 1995 the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under the terms of Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 8th August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers receive a high proportion of their wages in
the form of a productivity bonus. This bonus is
included in the calculation of the workers' holiday pay.
By excluding the bonus payments from sick-pay the
workers are disadvantaged.
2. Concession of this claim will not lead to repercussive
claims as no other workers are at a financial
disadvantage when out sick. Workers incur extra costs
when out sick. The exclusion of the bonus payments from
sick-pay is an unreasonable extra penalty.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's sick-pay scheme is reasonable and compares
favourably with those of the Company's main
competitors. The scheme has worked well in protecting
workers against financial hardship while ill.
Concession of the Union's claim would lead to
repercussive claims from other staff.
2. The claim is cost increasing and therefore is disallowed
under the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and
Work. The Company's scheme is designed to create an
incentive to work. There is a concern that any
adjustment to the present scheme could lead to increased
absenteeism.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions.
The provision of a Company sick-pay scheme is to provide
protection for employees against financial hardship during periods
of absence from work due to illness. Whilst the Court has
sympathy with the employees concerned in this case the claim for
benefit to be defined as net weekly pay inclusive of regular bonus
earnings is cost increasing and as such is contrary to the
provisions of the PCW.
Accordingly the Court considers it inappropriate that the claim
should be pursued at this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th October, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.