FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Application of existing sick pay scheme to part-time workers - Limerick Distributive Trades.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are part-time workers employed by the retail stores which are members of the Limerick Distributive Trades.
The Union's claim is that the existing sick pay scheme applicable to full-time staff should be applied to part-time staff on a pro-rata basis. The employers reject the claim.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th of May, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of November, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The employment climate has changed since 1987. The scheme agreed then is of little benefit to part-time workers when they are out of work due to illness.
2. Other employers in the retail trade have concluded agreements on the sick pay scheme for part-time staff.
3. The sick pay scheme for full-time staff should be extended to part-time staff on a pro-rata basis retrospective to the 20th December, 2001.
EMPLOYERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The existing sick pay scheme applicable to part-time staff is in existence since 1987.
2.The employers are prepared to negotiate on the substantive benefits of the sick pay scheme for part-time staff.
3. The Union's claim cannot be conceded as it would result in higher levels of absenteeism among part-time staff and increased costs to the employers.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case was referred to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, and not under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001.
It is clear from the written and oral submissions made by the parties that a number of agreements have been reached in relation to this issue and that there are variations in the agreements particularly in relation to the ongoing arrangements.
The Union argued that Section 9(1) of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001, was clear and unambiguous. It states that:
"The conditions of employment of part-time workers cannot be less favourable than the comparable full time employee unless it can be justified on objective grounds."
The reasons put forward by the employers for not extending the full time sick pay scheme to part-time workers the Union claimed, do not constitute objective grounds.
The employers for their part have listed a number of areas to justify objective grounds including, damaging impact on competitiveness, increasing costs, potential to abuse the scheme, impact on rostering and flexibility and excessive administration measures.
It is clear that at some stage the Court may have to make a judgement as to whether the employers are justified in rejecting this claim under Section 9(2)(1) of the Act.
However, as previously stated this issue is before the Court under the Industrial Relations Act. It is the Court's view, given the number of options that were discussed in the Court, and the agreements concluded in other centres, that the parties should make a further effort to try to reach an agreement on this matter, one that would address the concerns outlined by both sides at the hearing.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties enter into discussion with a view to reaching an agreement, these discussions be completed within six weeks from the date of this recommendation. Should the parties fail to reach agreement then a complaint can be made under Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
1st December, 2003______________________
GB/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.