FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRALCO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Implementation of sick pay scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Collinstown, Co Westmeath and employs approximately 460 workers. It is engaged in the manufacture of parts for the automotive industry. The Union is seeking the introduction of a sick pay scheme for hourly paid workers. It cites a document from the Labour Relations Commission from September, 1998, regarding a sick pay scheme which, it claims, was accepted by both parties at that time. The Company's case is that, due to its current financial situation, it cannot afford to introduce a sick pay scheme, but it intends reviewing the situation in March, 2004.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th of March, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of August, 2003, in Athlone, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENT :
3. 1. The parties spent a lot of time discussing the sick pay scheme at the Labour Relations Commission and agreement was signed off on the scheme in 1998.
2. Absenteeism has dropped considerably in the last few years, from double figures to 5-6%, something acknowledged by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company experienced severe financial difficulties in years 2000-2002. resulting in it having to paythe Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) over a revised time frame. It also meant that the sick pay scheme had to be deferred.
2. The Company's financial and trading situation has continued to worsen over the last 6 months (details supplied to the Court). One of the results of this has been 74 recent redundancies on a voluntary/compulsory basis, with more to come.
3. The Company is committed to introducing a sick-pay scheme and will review its financial situation in March, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that on the information provided by the Company (which is not seriously contested by the Union) the economic and commercial circumstances of the employment are now such that the introduction of a sick pay scheme in the terms claimed would not be appropriate at this time.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the possibility of introducing an agreed sick pay scheme be reviewed by the parties in March, 2004.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th September, 2003______________________
CO'N/BGDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.