FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEO LABORATORIES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Implementation of Absence Management System
BACKGROUND:
2. Leo Laboratories Ltd is engaged in the manufacture of human and animal health care products in Dublin since 1958. The company employs approximately 430 people. In 2001 the Company introduced a site-wide Absence Management Programme (AMP). The programme has been supported by the Chemicals, Healthcare and Distribution branch of SIPTU and by the clerical section of the Technical & Administrative branch of SIPTU.
This dispute involves members of the Administration, Supervisory and Sales Staff Branch of SIPTU, 18 clerical staff in one section and 30 laboratory staff in another section. The issue concerns the introduction without agreement of an Absence Management Programme in October 2002. Local discussions took place between parties from February to September 2002 at which time the company withdrew.
A Conciliation Conference took place in December 2002. Agreement was not reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd January, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th April, 2003, at the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The issue in dispute is the introduction without agreement of an Absence Management Programme (AMP) in October 2002. Discussions took place between the parties between February - September 2002 at which time the company withdrew from discussions and unilaterally imposed the programme without agreement.
2. Imposing these changes the company has repeatedly broken a 1993 agreement on a Time and Attendance System (TMS). They have failed to give members a written guarantee that it will not continue to break the agreement or any proposed successor to it. Despite repeated requests, the Company has yet to provide the Union with a written outline of the policy or procedures which they have adopted.
3. The Company's requirement for health and hygiene practices are very exacting. While the Union understands and acknowledges this, they cannot accept a double standard whereby the company insists that an individual not attend for work, while simultaneously taking sanction against them for not being in attendance. The Union has no difficulty with management's right to assess fitness to work, provided assessment is carried out by medically trained personnel. In order that confidentially and privacy is assured, medical certificates should only be sent to the Occupational Nurse on site and not given to Department Managers, or Personnel Department. The Union also request that members be given copies of any records held on computer relating to their attendance and any notes made during the course of reviews with management.
4. The Union has stated that they are not opposed in principle to an AMP, but do have concerns regarding the detail of the policy and the procedures surrounding its application. The Company has not provided a breakdown of absence level for the sections represented. The Union state that they are available for discussion but require assurance that management will desist from breaking existing agreements and will forward copies of their proposals them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 For many years the Company has had excessive levels of absence which have imposed an unsustainable cost and performance burden on them. The Absence Management System is extremely necessary if the Company is to manage attendance and related costs. The System has been accepted and applied to all other SIPTU members.
2. In 2000 the Company had a site-wide absence of 6.5% This is a net figure of sickness related absence and does not include absence under the Company's maternity leave scheme, paternity leave etc. By comparison the average for all personnel in comparable companies in the pharmaceutical sector is 4.2%. Best companies have a rate of less than 2%.
3. In 1992 the Company agreed that information stored on the TMS system would not be used for disciplinary purposes.. The Company fully accepts that the system had been breached previously, and confirm that the new system will not be used for disciplinary purposes. The new system has been developed to facilitate the AMP. Local supervisory executive records all absences which are then used for Absence Management.
4. All concerns expressed by Laboratory personnel have been comprehensively addressed by management. The Company cannot countenance a situation where a company wide initiative is not acceptable to one category of employee.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the introduction of an Absence Management System in the Company has created problems for the Union in relation to the method of accumulation of information and of the practices adopted in particular by first line supervision on return to work. The Union also argued that it was not consulted over a period of time before the introduction of the scheme.
Management accepts that it had breached an agreement by using the TMS System in disciplinary cases but is adamant that this should not have happened and this will not be the way of gathering such information in the future. On the issue of supervision it accepts that the details of illness should not be discussed by supervisors but is less inclined to accept that there should be limitations on discussions by front line supervision in relation to absences.
The Court having taken into consideration all of the oral and written submissions made by both parties believes that it is appropriate for any Company, where it is perceived there has been abuse of the system, to try to put in place mechanisms to control or eliminate such abuse. However, the Court is very sensitive to the fact that initiatives like this can result in employees who are genuinely ill through fear, reporting for work thereby improving the sickness absence rate for a period of time but with serious consequences in the medium term.
The Court would be concerned of the introduction of the new scheme resulting in employees who were ill, feeling harassed.
The Court recommends that the current system, which is in operation under protest, be accepted by employees on the clear understanding that the information on the attendance will not be accumulated through any of the practices, which it has been agreed will not to be used. In addition, the Court also recommends that supervisors in dealing with the return to work situation are sensitive to the confidentiality and personal aspects of any illness.
It is the Court's view, that it is in everyone's interest that the Sick Pay Scheme is used properly and that abuse of the scheme by some employees should not be allowed put the scheme at risk. However, the Court is also of the view that the Company should not be insensitive when implementing the new scheme.
The Court recommends that the scheme be accepted and continue to operate and that the Company meet with the Union to try to address the concerns raised by the employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th April, 2003______________________
JB/Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.