FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. VHI related payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a difference of opinion between management and the Unions in respect of VHI lump sum payments. The Unions state that as part of an agreement the Company pay a lump sum payment equivalent to Plan B plus 30 units to all staff with effect from the first pay week in February each year. The lump sum is paid to all employees regardless of whether they are members of the VHI or not.
The Unions claim that in 2002, the VHI increased its charges by 18%. The Company made representations to the VHI and secured a deferral of the increase until August, 2003. The Unions state that as a result of the delay in implementing the increase the consequential loss will be approximately €45 to its members.
Management rejected the Unions' claim.
As there was no agreement between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 3rd of February, 2003, but agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th March, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th June, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The normal practice regarding VHI increases was that it was paid to employees as a lump sum in February of each year.
2. In 2002, the VHI increased its charges by 18%. However, the Company secured a six month deferral of the increase without any consultation or agreement with the Unions.
3. The Company's proposal to pay the 18% increase in August, 2003, instead of February, 2003, will in effect mean a loss of 9% to the staff concerned.
4. The custom and practice which has operated from day one of the VHI payments must continue to be applied, otherwise staff will be at a financial loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The concession by VHI to defer the implementation of the 18% increase from February to August has resulted not only in a saving for the Company but also all employees with policies with VHI.
2. The custom and practice since 1990 has been that the VHI allowance paid by the Company has always been based on the cost of Plan B plus 30 units under the group scheme, and not the cost of Plan B plus 30 units through any other scheme.
3. The agreement in 1990 was to offer every employee the opportunity to avail of one of the higher plans in a private medical insurance scheme at no cost to the individual. The fact that some employees have chosen to use that money for other purposes is not an argument to justify the Company having to pay an increase that has not been applied to the cost of the policy.
4. The Company's proposal to pay the increase to employees on 1st August, 2003, is totally in line with custom and practice and guarantees that all employees who incur an expense for medical insurance up to the value of Plan B plus 30 units in the group scheme will receive the full subsidy for that Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the established custom and practice is that the lump sum payable is calculated by reference to the actual cost of Plan B plus 30 units as it applies to members of the Company group scheme. The Company did not depart from that practice in 2002.
Accordingly, the Court can see no basis for the Unions' claim and does not recommend its concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd June, 2003______________________
LW/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.