FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAUSCH & LOMB IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from LCR17830.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures contact lenses in Waterford and employs approximately 1600 workers of whom 1400 are SIPTU members. The manufacturing operation is continuous 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Company claims that management of attendance is a major challenge and over the last number of years the Union operator attendance has reached an unsustainable level. It is currently running at an average of 8% for direct operators and has been at this level for the last 2 years. The industry norm is around 4.5%. On some weekend shifts the level has reached over 25%. The costs, tangible and intangible associated with this level of absence are proving unsustainable for the Company.
During local discussions between May and July 2004, the Company made a final offer, but this was rejected by the Union.
Clause (3) of scheme proposed by Company
"It is agreed that the National Average for absenteeism (currently agreed, as 4.5%) will be used to determine benefits under the scheme. Should this change it will be discussed with the Union Committee".
Clause (3) - The Union proposed the following to replace the Company's wording: "It is agreed that the National Average for absenteeism currently agreed, as 4.5% will be used to determine benefits under the scheme. It is envisaged that this figure will rise in line with the National Average, however this figure of 4.5% will not be decreased, should the National average fall.This was not accepted by the Company.
Company Offer:
Benefits:
Where an individual employee has absence of greater than 4.5% in the pervious calendar year their benefit will be reduced as follows:
Payment from day 4. First 7 weeks of absence - 80% of pay. Next 3 weeks of absence 70% of pay. Individuals with absenteeism less than 4.5% in the previous calendar year will not be affected.
Attendance Awards -
Amount increased and paid quarterly instead of yearly. Additional paid days leave for full attendance.
Time for Time -
Employees could bank up to a maximum of 1 full week.
Flexi days-
Guarantee of 8% on 3 cycle and 10% on weekends that could increase with a self managed buddy system.
Job sharing-
Where absenteeism reduced by 0.5% over 3 months. 8 employees will be guaranteed job sharing in the plant. This would continue for every 0.5% reduction.
- The Union is seeking a mechanism to reward change at the plant, which it says significantly impacts on its members in terms of extra productivity and flexibility etc. The company rejects the claim
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 16th June, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union are objecting to authorised time off being included in order to determine entitlements to benefit under the sick pay rules.
2. That the level of absence would be based on a fixed year, in line with the current sick pay scheme.
3. The Company are proposing that the level of absence would be based on a fixed year, in line with the current sick pay scheme and that workers start with a clean slate, with no backdating element.
4. The Union proposed their own wording above (Clause 3) to ascertain individual and group entitlement to benefits.
5. The Union are seeking a backdating of the agreed good attendance award scheme to facilitate the fundamental change in the sick pay scheme.
6. The Union maintains the implementation of Clause 20 would result in reduced benefits for all employees, whereas the current proposal if based on a fixed year would introduce reduced benefits for employees with more than 4.5% absence only.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The level of absenteeism is still exceptionally high and significantly outside national norms.
2. The cost of this absenteeism is unsustainable with sick pay along costing nearly $1m as well as production losses etc.
3. The current sick pay scheme structure is definitely contributing to the problem. The absenteeism profile in the Company is at odds with the normal seasonal patterns of illness - it peaks in May (sick pay year starts in April) and is at its lowest in December/January.
4. The Company has approached this issue reasonable, patiently and openly and is now at a point where sick pay costs must be reduced and absenteeism must be brought to a level that does not excel national norms.
5. The Company are seeking the right to revert back to the sick pay scheme that existed before the improvements in 1988.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the parties have reached substantial agreement on adjustments to the sick-pay scheme arising from Recommendation LCR17830. In respect of the issues of detail on which agreement was not reached the Court recommends as follows:
Reckonable Absence.
Absence which is both authorised and paid should not be taken into account in determining if an individual has reached the 4.5% threshold.
Reference Period.
The Court recommends that the reference period for calculating absence should be a calendar year, in line with the current arrangements.
Basis for Determining Benefits.
The Court recommends that the working of Clause 3 of the scheme proposed by the Company should be accepted.
Start Date.
The Court recommends that the Union's proposal on the commencement date for the new scheme be accepted. the Court further recommends that absences prior to its commencement should not be taken into account for the purpose of the new scheme.
Good Attendance Awards
The Court does not recommend backdating of this scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th August, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.