FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : A O SMITH ELECTRIC MOTORS (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Dispute regarding amendment to Company/Union Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 2 issues in dispute. One is a proposed amendment to the attendance/time-keeping procedures in the Company/Union agreement. The second is that the Union is seeking the introduction of a sick-pay scheme. The Union sees both issues as being connected. There are approximately 140 workers involved.
In April, 2000, the Company set out proposals which included a commitment to the principle of a sick-pay scheme if absenteeism levels fell to the national average. These proposals were voted on and accepted by the Union. A joint working-group was set up in May, 2000 to assess the situation, and continued until October, 2000. (The Company is seeking to achieve a target of 4% absenteeism. At present, the level in the Company is 7%-8%). The Company set out new proposals in October, 2000, which were rejected by ballot. The reason given by the Union was the absence of a sick-pay scheme and the "draconian" alterations to the attendance/time-keeping procedures. The Company proposed that the following would apply for attendance/time-keeping in a 12-month period:- 6 offences would result in a first stage warning, 9 offences would mean a second stage warning, 12 offences would mean a third stage warning, and 14 offences would result in a final written warning. An offence could be either a 'late' or one day's unofficial absence.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on 7th of February, 2001. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th of February, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of April, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has been operating in Bray for 24 years and there is still no sick-pay scheme for the general workforce. The workers accepted the Company proposals in April, 2000, in the belief that the Company was going to introduce a sick-pay scheme.
2. The level of absenteeism fell by 3%-5% during the period of the joint working group. Other companies (including American-owned companies) in the Bray area have attendance records which are no better than A O Smith but they do have sick-pay schemes. Other workers who are members of the Union have a sick-pay scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current level of absenteeism is high and is having an adverse effect on production, as well as resulting in increased costs through over-dependence on overtime.
2. The Company has committed to introducing a sick-pay scheme but the level of absenteeism will have to improve first. The Company has always maintained that the sick-pay issue was separate from the Company/Union agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company has requested the Court to endorse its amendment to the attendance and time keeping procedures in the Company/Union agreement. These amendments are put forward in an effort to encourage a more responsible approach to attendance and to reduce levels of absenteeism. The Union indicated its willingness to co-operate in this endeavour and agree to participate in a Joint Working Party to examine ways of reducing absenteeism. The Union also sought, as part of the review of the Company/Union agreement, the introduction of a sick pay scheme.
While the Working Party did bring about a 3% reduction in absenteeism, it was deemed to have "run its course" and did not reach the target figure of 4% absenteeism. The Company maintained that it was necessary to reach this target figure before it would introduce a sick pay scheme, as per its commitment in April, 2000.
The Court notes the good industrial relations environment between the parties and their willingness to jointly tackle the problem associated with attendance and absenteeism. The Court recommends that the parties involved should enter into discussions to agree effective measures to address the current unacceptable level of absenteeism. When these measures have been agreed, the parties should negotiate and put in place, within a period of not more than 12 months, a sick pay scheme which will provide safeguards for avoiding abuse and relates to the needs of workers when on sick leave.
The Court is conscious of the Company's concern in relation to high absenteeism and the view that the introduction of a sick pay scheme may result in a further deterioration. The Court recommends that the scheme should be introduced on a trial basis and monitored to ensure any difficulties are resolved and that the scheme meets the criteria laid down. This review should also examine any change in absenteeism levels which may occur in this period. Any agreed scheme to be subject to review after two years.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th April 2001______________________
CON/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.