FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NAZARETH HOUSE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR9089/02/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is that the worker should have sick leave entitlements recognised for the period 12th of October, 2000, to 25th April, 2001. The worker is a qualified registered general nurse employed by the House in Sligo. Nazareth House is funded from 2 seperate sources - subvention by the North Western Health Board and income from private beds.
LCR 16299 issued in October 1999 and recommended that nursing staff employed by the House should have parity of pay and conditions with nurses employed in the public service. The recommendation put a time scale not exceeding 6 months for its implementation. The worker reported sick on the 12th of October, 2000. At that time the House did not have a sick pay scheme and the worker did not receive sick pay as recognised leave for the period she was absent. LCR 16299 was implemented in Nazareth House in August, 2001, some 21 months after the date of the recommendation. The Union's case is that if the recommendation had been implemented by April 2000 (i.e. within 6 months) the worker would have been eligible for sick pay for the period she was absent.
The employer's case is that the introduction of the sick pay scheme was agreed between the parties (plus SIPTU) from the 1st of October, 2001, retrospective to 1st of August, 2001.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:-
"The Union and the employer agreed to the introduction of Sick Pay from a certain date, i.e. 1st August 2001. The period for which sick pay is being sought on behalf of the claimant predates the agreed operative date of the sick pay scheme and is therefore not covered by the scheme.
On the grounds that the employer is honouring the agreed arrangements I do not recommend concession of the claim."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th of January, 2003, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of March, 2004, in Sligo, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer failed to implement LCR 16299. It eventually applied the sick pay scheme 15 months after it was due to be implemented. If it had implemented the recommendation, the worker would have been entitled to almost 6 months' sick pay.
2. A letter from Irish Business and Employers' Confederation (IBEC) in March, 2000, stated that the North Western Health Board would honour the implementation of LCR 16299.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During discussions between the parties in September, 2001, regarding the introduction of the sick pay scheme, no mention was made of retrospection to October, 1999, the date the worker reported sick. In any event, the House could not have agreed to it for financial reasons.
2. The cost of the claim is approximately €8,500. Concession of it would have a serious knock on effect with claims from other employees who were on sick-leave from 12th of October, 1999, to the 1st of August, 2001.
DECISION:
It is clear to the Court that the agreement on the introduction of a sick-pay scheme specifically provided that it would apply from 1st August, 2001. In that respect, it is clear that the parties agreed to a modification of the terms recommended by the Court in LCR 16299.
Since the claim now before the Court relates to a period before the agreed commencement date, the Court does not recommend its concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th April, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.