FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR14289/03/JH
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a manufacturer of extrusion and injection blow moulded products, and currently employs over 250 workers.
The dispute concerns a worker who is currently employed as a Group Leader. She was offered a position of temporary Group Leader in April, 2001, and was made permanent in April, 2002. The dispute concerns the Company's sick-pay scheme which operates for Group Leaders.
In 1997, an agreement was reached between the parties which included, the Company claims, a sick-pay scheme dated the 23rd of October, 1997..."benefits of which will apply to all current team leaders immediately".There was a dispute between the parties regarding the agreement, with the Union claiming that a second document entitledProduction Team Leaders Sick Pay Schemedid not form part of the agreement. The Company's view is that the document was part of the agreement and that it stated that future Group Leaders would need a 2 year qualifying time before the sick pay scheme applied to them. The worker concerned was on sick leave from September, 2002, to January, 2003, and from February, 2003, to April, 2003. The Union's claim is that the worker should have been paid for the periods she was absent. However, the Company is arguing that with the current scheme she would not be eligible to avail of it until April, 2004.
The dispute was referred to the a Rights Commissioner and her recommendation issued as follows:
"Based on the submissions made at the hearing and on the information supplied I am satisfied that the Company has consistently maintained an interpretation of the agreement for sick leave in respect of team leaders and that there is no valid claim on behalf of the worker and I do not recommend concession of her claim".
(The worker was named in the above recommendation)
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th of September, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of November, 2003, in Navan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreement of 1997 is silent regarding any qualifying time for access to the Group Leader sick-pay scheme. The Company's initial proposals did have a qualifying period but this was subsequently dropped in the final agreement.
2. The Union understands that an employee with less that 2 years' qualifying time was paid in accordance with the sick-pay scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned does not qualify under the terms of the current sick-pay scheme.
2. The agreement in 1997 only applied to workers who were team leaders at that time. The worker did not become a permanent team leader until April, 2002.
DECISION:
In this case, it is necessary for the Court to interpret an agreement entered into between the parties in 1997. There is some ambiguity in the terms of the agreement in that it is not clear if the main agreement dated 23rd of October, 1997 is to be read in conjunction with the second document entitled "Production Team Leaders Sick Pay Scheme". It is management's recollection that this latter document was submitted to the Union together with the draft main agreement and that it was intended that both documents should be construed together. The Union understands that the document dated 23rd October was to be a stand-alone document.
Whilst the matter is not entirely beyond doubt, it appears to the Court that the wording of the main agreement supports the contention that it refers to the sick pay scheme set out in the second document. This would also explain why it was necessary to provide in the main agreement that the scheme would apply to current team leaders immediately.
In all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the conclusion reached by the Rights Commissioner is correct. Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th November, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.