FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BARRETTS & CO. LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Sick Pay & Service Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a family owned business and has been trading for approximately one hundred years and employs 16 staff. The main activity carried out by the Company is the export of Irish wool.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 8 of its members for (1) an improvements in the sick pay scheme and (2) the introduction of service pay.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 22nd of June, 2000. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of December, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking to have the sick pay scheme extended from 2 weeks at full pay followed by 24 weeks at two-thirds to 8 weeks at full pay with the remainder at two-thirds.
2. The Union is seeking a service reward for its members who have given long service, i.e. typically 20 years plus service for some staff. The claim is as follows:
5 years service £1.50p per week
10 years service £2.50p per week
15 years service £3.50p per week
20 years service £4.50p per week
3. At conciliation, the Union indicated that it would accept the above rates less 50 pence at each rate.
4. The Union maintained that the rates are reasonable given the sector norms in agri-business and the fact that the PPF has provided that comparisons be made.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's core business for 10 months of the year is wool with 2 months slack taken up with fertiliser and seeds. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to use agri-business norms as comparators. The Company's appropriate competitors do not have sick pay schemes nor do they have service pay.
2. There is considerable competition and conceding these claims would adversely affect the Company's competitiveness. The Company survives under tight margins.
3. The Company honours the PPF agreement and as the claims in question are cost increasing, the Company is precluded from having to deal with them under that agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions, finds as follows on the 2 claims.
1.Sick Pay
The Court is not satisfied that the Sick Pay Scheme operating in the Company is substantially out of line with comparable Employments. The claim is, therefore, prohibited under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
2.Service Pay
While the Union was prepared to enter into discussions to minimise the cost of this claim, the employer's argument that this claim is outside the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness is upheld by the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd January, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.