FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH GLASS BOTTLE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Curtailed services of doctor.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arises due to a Union request for the re-instatement of a medical practitioner on Company premises. Since the 1950s a doctor, who was also a founding family member of the Company, was available to staff on Company premises for 1 hour, 5 days a week. In 1979, the Company employed a full-time nurse on the premises. In 1991, the doctor retired and was replaced by another doctor whose services were made available to staff, on Company premises, for one hour, 2 days a week. In August, 1994, the doctor's contract ended and he was not replaced. Since then, the Company refers to the services of medical practitioners, as required, at their own practices.
The Union claims that both of the former on-site doctors did, on occasion, issue prescriptions to employees and, the Union claims, this service should be restored. The Union also claims that there is an agreement between the parties that the Company would provide free medical attention to the staff.
The Company's position is that the contracts of employment of the 2 doctors referred to them as "occupational medical officers" and that it was never intended that they would issue prescriptions. If they did so, it was entirely in a personal capacity and this practice was not indicative of the Company's health policy. The Company added that it is not duty-bound to provide a personal medical service to staff.
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 May, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 22nd of June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The erosion of medical services on-site took place without prior consultation with the Union. Most progressive modern companies with employment levels similar to the Company provide medical facilities including a site doctor.
2. The Union indicated that it would accept the presence of a doctor on site for only 2 hours per week to deal with any medical issues either occupational or general. The Company refused, arguing that the services provided by the nurse were sufficient. The position adopted by the Company is a breach of Partnership 2000 and is an erosion of the conditions of employment enjoyed for many years by the workers on site.
3. A section of the original Company handbook, issued to all employees, states, in relation to "general welfare", that "Free medical attention is provided, and the Company medical officer attends daily at the surgery provided on the Company's premises".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The doctor's role was to advise on the occupational health of employees and not their general health.
2. Although, on some occasions, employees received treatment from either doctor, on site, for minor ailments which were not necessarily work-related, it was not part of the doctors' brief. Notwithstanding this, the Company would not have objected to such treatment given that the Company is in full production for 168 hours per week and, except for a few isolated incidents, employees do not visit the dispensary outside normal working hours, unless requested to do so by the Company.
3. Since the doctor terminated his contract in August, 1997, the Company has used the services of two other recognised occupational physicians.
4. There is no reference in formal agreements between the parties to any form of free medical service to any category of employee. The document from which the Union quotes a reference to free medical attention is believed to have been produced for training purposes about 2 years ago and is not an official document.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the conditions surrounding the provision of a medical facility on site have changed, the Court is not satisfied that the Company ever provided a general medical service. The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th July, 1999______________________
MK/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.