FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOART LONGYEAR LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Sick-pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been located in Shannon, Co. Clare since 1960 and manufactures percussive rock drilling equipment. The company employs approximately 200 workers, including 86 in its Construction, Mining and Geotechnical division who are concerned by this dispute.
In 1993, a sick-pay scheme for hourly-paid employees was introduced, following negotiations between the Company and the Union. The scheme, which replaced a minimal type contributory scheme, provided for basic pay net of social welfare for 30 days in any 12-month period, with management discretion to apply thereafter. Payment from the scheme would be made only while absence within the Company remained at less than 3.25% per annum on a 12-month moving average basis. In May, 1996, the Company ceased to operate the scheme on the grounds that absence had increased to 4.6%.
From April, 1997, the Company introduced a revised version of the 1993 scheme, providing that only certified illnesses would be covered and there would be no sick-pay for the first 2 days of any illness, to be reviewed after 3 months. The Union is seeking improvements in line with the scheme that applies to the Company's "staff" employees, providing for higher sick-pay benefit, the introduction of 2 waiting days and the exclusion of absences arising from accidents at work for the purposes of calculation of absence. The Company rejected the Union's claim particularly in view of the absence trend but decided to extend the scheme for a further 3 months.
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 Limerick, on the 17th of December, 1997.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has adhered fully to the Agreement of 1993 and has demonstrated the utmost flexibility in addressing the whole issue of the sick-pay scheme. Despite provisions existing within the Sick-Pay Agreement for the immediate suspension of the scheme if the 12-month moving average exceeded the agreed limit, the Company did not do so for an extra two months, i.e., until May 1996.
2. It is reasonable to insist that the issue of absence has to be addressed before any improvements can be made to the Sick-Pay Scheme. For five out of the six years prior to the introduction of the 1993 Sick Pay Scheme, the absence levels were considerably lower than the 3.25% twelve month moving average and there can be no argument that those margins were two tight.
3. The definition of absence used by the Company is based on the standard mechanism for calculation: Absence is any absence other than annual leave, maternity leave, bereavement leave, exam/study leave and jury service, excluding absences through certified illness in excess of 26 weeks which are excluded from the statistics. Clearly, all employees who are on sick-leave regardless of the cause of illness should be included in the absenteeism figures. This is the standard measurement used and there is no basis for excluding absences caused by particular reasons such as accidents.
4. The Union has lodged a claim for the introduction of a scheme comparable to that which exists for salaried employees. The Company, while supporting the principle of equity in conditions of employment, and while willing to analyse further the possibilities of introducing such a scheme in the future, is strongly of the opinion that no such measures should be countenanced until absenteeism is brought under control.
5. The 1993 Scheme was agreed under Clause 4 of the PCW Agreement, which states that negotiations on sick-pay would be governed by "the possible implications for attendance". It is apparent that the introduction of the sick-pay scheme has had serious implications for the Company, contributing to an increase in absenteeism to 4.6% in 1996. The National Agreement clearly underscores the principle that absenteeism levels must be controlled if the Company is to continue to support the scheme.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company argues that there will be no improvement in the scheme until the level of absence improves. However, it is not sustainable, in a highly flexible work-environment, for hourly-paid workers to be treated less favourably than other staff in respect of such a basic condition of employment as paid sick-leave.
2. The division of the Company is involved in heavy industry and the workplace consists of heavy machinery operating in a noisy environment. The incidence of occupational injuries is relatively high. The Union has argued in the past that at the very least absences due to occupational injuries should be excluded from the calculation of the absenteeism level in the context of the sick-pay scheme.
3. Clause 4 of the Agreement on Pay and Conditions of Employment in Partnership 2000 provides for the processing of claims for improvements in sick-pay schemes. The Company has the capacity to absorb the cost involved. With regard to the possible implications for attendance, the calculation of the level of absenteeism is distorted by the inclusion of a significant level of absence resulting from occupational injuries. It is unreasonable in these circumstances that this group of workers be treated less favourably in respect of sick pay benefit than their "white collar" colleagues.
4. Operator grades in the Company's Tungsten Carbide division, also based in Shannon, enjoy the same sick-pay benefits as their "white collar" colleagues and those who work a shift receive the benefit of their shift-pay when absent due to illness.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court noted the Company's willingness to discuss improvements in the sick-pay scheme subject to being satisfied that proper control mechanisms are in place.
Having considered all the information presented, the Court recommends that the scheme currently in operation, with the modifications made, be reviewed in June, 1998.
At that time, the parties should, having monitored the scheme and dependant on its operation for this period, enter into discussions with a view to agreeing modifications to the scheme to meet the aims of both parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12th of January, 1998______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.