FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNITED DRUG PLC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMICUS MSF SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Paid maternity leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. United Drug is a pharmaceutical wholesaler employing over 700 staff across four locations. Approximately 55-60% of the workforce is female. Currently salaried female staff employed by the Company receive paid maternity leave, whereas waged female employees only receive social welfare entitlements.
The Union's claim for the Dublin office only, is that it is unfair to make a distinction between salaried and waged staff on the maternity leave issue. The Company are concerned that if this claim is conceded it may have knock on effects and create a precedent in relation to other benefits such as sick pay and pensions.
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 4th November, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Clerical staff receive full payment while on maternity leave, while warehouse staff on maternity leave only receive statutory entitlements.
2. The Unions refute the Company's argument that there will be knock on effects if claim is conceded. This is a stand alone claim.
3. This claim is not cost increasing as argued by the Company as only a small percentage of female employees actually take maternity leave in any one year.
4. The Company are attempting to discriminate against a group of women in favour of a different group of women simply on the basis of the terms of employment that goes with one and not the other.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The claim is cost increasing and therefore in breach of Sustaining Progress.
2. The claim, if conceded would have major knock on implications.
3. The majority of employers within wholesale distribution sector do not pay in excess of statutory maternity leave.
4. The Company rejects any contention that employees are being discriminated against.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Claim before the Court concerns the extension of the Company's maternity benefit scheme to wage earning staff in their Dublin Offices. The Scheme currently applies to salaried staff whereby, while on maternity leave the Company pays a top up of social welfare to normal basic pay. The Company rejected the claim, as it is a cost-increasing claim, thereby precluded by the terms of Sustaining Progress and it feared the possibility of other knock on claims.
The Unions sought equity for all pregnant staff and gave a clear undertaking to the Court that this claim would not lead to knock on claims for any other benefits.
The Court is of the view that the fact that the wage-earning staff do not benefit from this scheme is anomalous and in all the circumstances of this claim, the Court recommends the extension of the existing maternity scheme to all staff in the Dublin Offices.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd November, 2004______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.