FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ANGLO IRISH BEEF PROCESSORS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Goodman Organisation. It operates nine plants which are involved in the slaughtering and processing of beef for the domestic and export markets.
The Unions' claim on behalf of 300 members for the introduction of a sick pay scheme was initiated in 1998 as part of a claim for Clause 3 of PESP and the introduction of a pension scheme. It was the subject of a Labour Court recommendation No. LCR 16221 in which the Court recommended that the parties have further negotiations on the issue. Local discussions failed to resolve the matter and the parties attended a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 2nd of March, 2000. The Company put forward the following proposals which were rejected by the Unions:-
1. The Union to put forward proposals to reduce absenteeism levels.
2. No payment to be made for the first five working days of any absence.
3. Only medically certified absences to be paid for.
4. Payment to reflect the 2 to 3 day working - combined benefit of Social Welfare and sick pay not to exceed actual working income.
5. Scheme to be based on an equal fixed contribution from both the employer and the employees.
6. Membership of scheme confined to staff with more than one year's service.
7. Scheme to be administered by a committee comprised mainly of staff members.
8. Each fund to be run on its own plant by plant basis.
It was agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th of July, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All workers are entitled to the comfort factor that, if they are unfortunate enough to be ill, their income should not be put in jeopardy in the short term. Most reasonable and responsible employers provide cover to meet this contingency. The concept that it should be jointly funded is antiquated.
2. The main argument put forward by Management of high levels of absenteeism should not be allowed to prevent the introduction of a basic sick pay arrangement. The continuous short time working and the inadequate notice given to workers of any change in the days to be worked in a particular week may affect the absentee statistics. A little more consideration in the matter of weekly rosters may make a significant improvement in what constitutes absenteeism.
3. The Unions are seeking a service related minimalist scheme. From 0 to 5 years' service payment of 6 weeks' full pay and 6 weeks' half pay is sought. From 6 to 10 years' service payment of 13 weeks' full pay and 13 weeks' half pay is sought. It is accepted that absenteeism would have to be certified and that the scheme would only begin after the first two days of absence. Because of the size of each plant Management would be well aware of any attempt to abuse the scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Absenteeism levels at the Company's plants are chronically high and the Company cannot afford to concede any measure which is likely to result in an increase in same. The Company cannot allow unlimited liability and sought to limit the liability to 2% of payroll maximum in any one year.
2. An agreed procedure for dealing with the high absenteeism levels must be found. The Company's previous proposal to pay the 3% local bargaining Clause of PESP as an attendance bonus was rejected by the Unions and it was then paid to all general operatives. The Unions subsequently sought an attendance bonus scheme. This was rejected by the Company because of cost implications. A points system has been in use over the past number of years. However, the Unions have complained and resisted the Company's efforts to discipline workers who accumulate points.
3. The type of scheme proposed by the Unions ignores completely the fact of 2/3 day week working which is established and likely to continue in the short to medium term. As most schemes in other industries are based on five or seven day working five waiting days would be appropriate in this instance. The Company proposed that each scheme would operate on a plant by plant basis administered by a committee comprised mostly of employees as they are in the best position to monitor absence levels and individual cases.
4. It is entirely reasonable to provide cover for certified absence only. The Company should also have the right to refer an employee to a Company appointed medical practitioner at any time. The Company's proposal that employees have a direct financial interest in the running of the scheme would assist in ensuring that abuses of the scheme would be limited if not non-existent.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties together with the additional information provided following the hearing and recommends as follows:
1. The parties should immediately put in place effective measures to address the current unacceptable level of absenteeism.
2. A sick pay scheme be put in place which should have the following features:
(I) The scheme should be non-contributory,
(II) The scheme should operate on a daily basis and provide benefit for up to fifteen days of certified illness per year,
(III) The first three days of illness should be excluded,
(IV) Benefit should be at full basic pay less Social Welfare Disability Benefit.
3. The detailed rules for the application of the scheme, including any service qualification, should be agreed between the parties. The totality of the scheme should be reviewed after it has been in operation for two years. This review should take full account of the position with regard to absenteeism over the period.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th August, 2000______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.