FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WILLAMETTE EUROPE 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: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Improved sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The company, which is based in Clonmel, Co. Tipperary, manufactures medium-density fibre board and employs approximately 200 people.
A sick pay scheme was introduced in November, 1992, and, due to an increase in sick absences, was amended in 1994 following a Labour Court recommendation (LCR14468). The scheme currently pays the following benefits:
100% for 2 weeks
75% for 3 weeks
60% for 1 week
In the event of hospitalisation the benefit is extended for the duration of the hospitalisation to a maximum of 26 weeks as follows:
50% for 11 weeks
25% for 9 weeks
The Union is seeking improvements in the scheme on behalf of its members. The issue was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th of April, 1998. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Clonmel on the 30th of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim is for payment of 100% of the difference between net pay and Social Welfare benefit for a total of 12 weeks. In the case of continuous hospitalisation the claim is for 100% for 26 weeks.
2. The Company's sick pay scheme is well out of line when compared with schemes in two local multinational companies. One of them pays benefits for 12 weeks, the other for 26 weeks. The Union's claim does not, therefore, breach Partnership 2000.
3. Management has expressed concern over abuses of the sick pay scheme. It is Management's responsibility to monitor any abuses and, where proven, to discipline the staff concerned. The Union does not condone abuses of sick pay schemes and would support Management's position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not accept that the current scheme is "substantially out of line" as envisaged in Partnership 2000. The provision of sick pay in the event of hospitalisation arising from a personal non work-related illness is very rare.
2. The Company is firmly opposed to any improvement in the scheme as previous experience has shown that absenteeism increased dramatically when the benefits increased. Absenteeism currently stands at 5% - 6%, which represents an unacceptable level of cost and disruption.
3. The terms of the scheme are appropriate given the previous history, the level of absenteeism, the terms of the scheme and Clause 4 of Partnership 2000. The scheme was agreed following arduous negotiations between the parties and consideration of all the issues by the Labour Court in 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that this claim is precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000 as the scheme is not substantially out of line with appropriate employments. The Court, therefore, rejects the claim but recommends that the parties meet at the end of Partnership 2000 to explore ways of improving the scheme on a quid pro quo basis.
In the meantime, the scheme should be monitored and any abuses brought to the notice of the Union officials.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th October, 1998______________________
D.G./B.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.