FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NAMCO (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Sick absence scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, under various owners, has operated in Tipperary town since 1978. It employs approximately 50 people in the manufacture of video games for arcades and there are two main departments, the 'Video Shop' and the 'Woodshop'.
The employees in both departments have similar conditions of employment except that there are two distinct sick pay schemes (details supplied to the Court) in operation in the two shops. The Union is seeking that the scheme in the Video Shop be applied to the workers in the Woodshop. It argues that the workers in the Video Shop enjoy considerably better sick pay terms to the workers in the Woodshop and that the Company's refusal to extend the scheme to the Woodshop is unfair.
The Company's position is that the scheme is generous and that custom and practice related to certain aspects of the scheme over the years has brought about a situation where many employees perceive the scheme as offering twelve additional days leave.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on the 13th of February and the 24th of April, 1997. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of February, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Kilkenny on the 27th of May, 1998, the first available date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers employed in the Video Shop enjoy the benefits of both short-term and long-term sick pay schemes. The employees in the Woodshop only have the benefits of a long-term scheme. This results in one group of workers being paid for sick absence of one to two days without certification, while the other group lose the first three days of their sick absence.
2. The only difference in the workers' conditions of employment are the sick pay schemes. The workers employed in the Woodshop are concerned that they are being treated differently and unfairly by management. In the circumstances the Union's claim is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The short-term scheme was originally intended to cover short-term illness and has become, through a process of drift over the years, payment for absence without certification. This has brought about a level of cost and disruption which was never envisaged.
2. The disruption factor has multiplied as the number of employees has reduced through agreed rationalisation. There are now fewer options available to replace absent employees.
3. In an effort to be fair to all sides, the Company put forward alternative proposals (details supplied to the Court) which would have the effect of improving the sick pay provision for the Woodshop and bringing employees in the Video Shop onto the new proposals.
4. The Company is adamant that it will not extend the Video Shop scheme. It is willing to make a fair compromise between the two schemes and to buy out any loss.
5. The alternative proposals are fair and will stand up to scrutiny and comparison by reference to sick pay schemes as they generally operate in the manufacturing industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has very considerable doubt as to whether the schemes which form the subject of this dispute can be described as "sick pay schemes" as the term is generally understood.
There is an obvious need to harmonise sick leave arrangements for employees in both operational divisions. It appears to the Court that the main difficulty in negotiating a single scheme has arisen from the extent, if any, to which non-sick leave/leave of absence elements of the existing arrangements should be retained.
The Court recommends that the parties should re-commence negotiations on a single sick pay scheme having regard to industry norms. Leave of absence arrangements, which are not before the Court, should be dealt with separately.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th June, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.