FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VEHA RADIATORS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMICUS -AEEU DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Improvement to Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns ten members of Amicus-AEEU who are employed as craft workers by the Company in Wicklow. The Company has 80-90 employees, most of whom are members of SIPTU. Amicus-AEEU are seeking an improvement in the sick pay scheme. In 2002 the Company reached agreement with SIPTU on the implementation of a sick pay scheme, employees on sick leave would be paid €75 gross per day for sick absence of up to two days in a rolling twelve month period. In September 2002 the Union signed up to the sick pay scheme on the understanding that it reserved the right to review the operation of the scheme at a future date.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and 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 24th March, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th July, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Company's offer of €75 per pay for two sick days each year must be improved to full day's pay (if scheme is in that format).
2. The Union argues that €75 equates to 81% of the SIPTU workers day rate of pay, where as the €75 equates to 64% of the Craft workers day rate of pay.
3. The Union are seeking a sick pay scheme to contain a duration of one week on full pay.
4. Scheme to be on a calendar year - not a rolling year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company in good faith introduced a sick pay scheme to alleviate hardship where genuine absence occurs and believes that the principles of the sick pay scheme remain fair and relevant.
2. The scheme is based on a fixed sum payment unrelated to any rates of pay and was based on the principle of alleviating hardship. This principal was accepted by the Union and signed for on the 19th September, 2002.
3. As there are two unions in the plant, the Company have a major concern that any adjustment to the principal of lump sum payment to one based on relativity to earnings payment, will cause further claims to arise within the Company.
4. The scheme is relatively new and does not warrant any significant changes as sought by the Union at this time, particularly in light of the competitive challenges facing the Company.
5. Any adjustment to the principal of a fixed payment to all, may ultimately cause the scheme to fail altogether.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court sees merit for the claim to improve the sick pay scheme. The Court recommends that all parties concerned should meet in September, 2004 to renegotiate the scheme, with a view to improving the scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th_July, 2004______________________
JB
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.