FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAUSCH & LOMB (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 1,680 people at its manufacturing plant in Waterford. It's core business is the production of contact lens but it also manufactures other eye care products. Approximately 1,350 of the staff are members of SIPTU.
The Company operates a comprehensive benefits package for all it's employees. A Sick Pay Scheme is one of these benefits. The current scheme is in operation since 1996. Over the last number of years the SIPTU operator attendance level has deteriorated. The cost of operating the Sick Pay Scheme has increased considerably over the past three years.
The issue before the Court concerns the Company's proposal to implement Clause 20 of the 1996 Sick Pay Scheme. Clause 20 would allow the Company to revert back to the Sick Pay arrangements which existed before improvements in 1988. Absenteeism is running above 3%.
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 21st of January, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union wish to see a considerable improvement in the good attendance awards if their members are to accept a new sick pay scheme.
2. The Union does not condone the abuse of the sick pay scheme but will not allow the scheme to be eroded because a minorityabuse it.
3.The Union have attempted to secure agreement and are prepared to discuss a resolution of the difficulties that have arisen.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1.The level of absenteeism is unacceptable and considerably outside national norms.
2. The Company tried to resolve the difficulties through joint discussions with the Union but when this approach failed the Company sought to implement Clause 20.
3. The Company approached the issue reasonably, patiently and openly and gave full opportunity to the Union to participate in finding a solution. No workable proposals were generated by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Company has the right to revert back to the sick pay scheme that existed before the improvements in 1988.
However the Court, noting the Union's acceptance that the problems outlined by the management have to be addressed, believes the parties should, given that progress was made, explore further the possibility of reaching an agreement satisfactory to both sides on this matter.
These discussions to be completed within 4 weeks of date of this recommendation. If the parties fail to reach an agreement the Court would on request make a definitive recommendation in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th May, 2004______________________
MG/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.