FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Non payment of vouchers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for payment of Christmas vouchers for a worker who was absent from work for a number of years because of illness.
The Union claims that as part of a 1982 rationalisation plan, a voucher with a current value of £225 is paid to each employee at Christmas each year.
The Company argues that the basis for the payment of the voucher was productivity based and as a result could not be paid if a worker was absent from work for a long period of time.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th March, 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 29th July, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no provision in the Company/Union agreement which specifically precludes payment of the allowance when absent due to illness.
2. Another worker who has been absent from work since the 1980's continues to receive the vouchers as a result of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
3. Under the terms of the 1982 agreement a number of qualifications for payment or non-payment of vouchers were specified. However, sick leave was not one of the specifications.
4. The claim is a modest one and should be conceded by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was absent from work for four years and as a consequence was not entitled to the vouchers.
2. The voucher scheme was solely based on productivity. The claimant made no contribution to the Company in four years and therefore did not qualify for the vouchers.
3. There was no precedent set when the vouchers were given to another employee who was absent from work due to illness because he was covered by an income continuance insurance plan.
4. The conditions of employment for the claimant did not allow for any type of income continuance insurance plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
It is clear from the submissions made that the parties in certain circumstances interpret differently the basis on which the vouchers should be paid. Accordingly, the Court considers the parties should discuss and agree criteria that are unambiguous and acceptable to both parties.
Therefore, the Court considers that in this case the employee concerned should be paid the vouchers claimed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
6th August, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.