FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TIPPERARY CO-OPERATIVE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Sick pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a claim for a consolidated rate of pay to be used in the determination of sick pay benefit on behalf of its clerical members. It states that the consolidated rate applies to holiday pay, but not to sick pay.
Management rejected the Union's claim.
The Company states that an agreement was concluded in April, 2000, covering changes in work practices and staffing levels, which addressed the aspirations of the clerical staff for an increase in pay.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 13th of December, 2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of December, 2001, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 12th of March, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The consolidated rate of pay should be applied for sick leave purposes.
2. The Union was asked to put the sick pay issue aside until a later date.
3. The level of absenteeism in the clerical sections is low.
4. The Company offered a remuneration pack age of £16,750 per year, but in essence for every week an employee is out sick and in receipt of sick pay that figure reduces by £95.18
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement in April, 2000, provided for the basic rate of pay to be that which would pertain for pension and sick pay determination.
2. The sick pay scheme is not out of line with appropriate standards in comparisons with other employments in the dairy industry.
3. Concession of the claim would lead to knock-on claims from other sections of the workforce.
4. The claim is a cost increasing one and is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
Both sides accept that there is an agreement in existence that clearly lays out the method of payment that would apply in the new situation.
However, the Union argues that it was led to believe it could raise the matter after the introduction of the new agreement and that it would get a sympathetic hearing from management.
Management are adamant that the deal was as written and was understood by the parties.
Having considered the submissions made and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court is satisfied that the agreement is as written and, therefore, the Union claim fails.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
22nd March, 2002______________________
LW/MBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.