FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MANOR PRODUCE COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Sick-pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company collects and processes red and washed offal for supply to the pet-food industry. It was established in 1922 and was owned by the UK-based Dalgaty Spillers group from 1979 until a management buy-out early in 1997. The Company employs a total of 27 hourly paid employees, comprising 24 operatives and 3 drivers.
The dispute concerns the Company's sick-pay scheme, which has been in place for 7 years. The scheme provides for sick-pay, as follows:-
60% of basic pay for 3 weeks,
50% of basic pay for a further 3 weeks,
40% of basic pay for a further 3 weeks.
No payment is made once the 9 weeks are exhausted. An employee would re-qualify for the full 9-week entitlement once he/she has been in attendance for 52 weeks.
The Union claims that the scheme is anomalous in respect of the 12-month qualifying period required, in that those with poor sick-leave records are treated the same as those with good records. The Company's response is that its two main competitors owned by IAWS and Goodman International have no sick-pay scheme and that, therefore, the claim is outside the terms of Partnership 2000 (P2000).
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 7th of October, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Clonmel, on the 9th of December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The scheme is unfair in that the re-qualfiying period is 12 months, irrespective of the different circumstances that may obtain. If a worker draws the full 9 weeks' sick-pay over one year he/she will have to wait 12 months to re-qualify. Another employee who draws the 9 weeks sick-pay over a longer period, e.g., 10 years still has to wait 12 months to re-qualify.
2. The Union recognises that the industry has been and is facing difficult times and the workers have always co-operated with the Company in any measures taken to address any difficulties that might arise.
3. The employees are loyal to the Company and there is a good working relationship between the two sides and the Union recognises the excellent manner is which the Company addresses industrial relations issues.
4. The Union is seeking to improve on the sick pay scheme in the context of the 12-month waiting period. This would ensure that the scheme would operate in the same manner as most schemes over a 12-month period with the usual conditions (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is operating in a competitive industry with a low profit margin. Its main customer, Dalgaty Spillers, insists that the price quoted by Manor Produce equates with the lowest price available to the Spillers Group in the marketplace.
2. Employees at the Company enjoy favourable terms and conditions of employment. The average annual earnings of operators is approximately £18,000 gross. In addition to a sick-pay scheme, the Company also provides a generous pension scheme. These terms and conditions were introduced while the Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of a major multinational. These conditions now represent significant costs to a small, privately-owned Irish company attempting to compete in a world marketplace. Any improvement in the scheme would place the Company at a further competitive disadvantage.
3. The current sick-pay scheme has operated successfully for over seven years. The Company's main competitors are Premier Proteins, Cahir and Munster Agri Proteins also of Cahir, Co. Tipperary. Neither of these companies offers any sick-pay scheme to its employees.
4. P2000 provides that "unions are not precluded" from making claims for the introduction of sick-pay schemes "where none exist" or for making claims for "the improvement of such schemes where these are substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments". As neither of the Company's competitors offers a sick-pay scheme, the current scheme is not out of line with comparable employments. Accordingly, this claim is cost increasing and precluded by Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the view that the sick-pay scheme as at present operated may be unfair in certain aspects.
However, recognising the terms of Partnership 2000, the Court recommends that, in the period from now until the expiration of that agreement, the parties negotiate a revised scheme which will address the problem raised by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
8th of January, 1998______________________
M.K./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.