FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN KEGS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Sick Pay Scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. Dublin Keg was established in April 1998 following Heineken Irelands Ltd decision to outsource their keg distribution nationally. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members who are employed as truck and forklift drivers by the Company, in relation to the Sick Pay scheme introduced by the Company. The claim was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in August, 2003. The Union’s claim was that the Company introduced changes to the Sick Pay Scheme in 2002 without consultation with them. The Court issued its recommendation LCR 17572, which recommended that both parties should revert to local discussions in an attempt to seek a solution and should the matter remain unresolved, it should be jointly referred to the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation and, if necessary, to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
- The Union's Claim and the Company's response in relation to the Sick Pay Scheme is as follows:
- Union's position: Company's position:
a.Payment to be made for first 3 sick days.a.No payment will be made in respect
of the first 3 days of sickness.
b.Medical Certificate to be submitted on theb.Medical cert to be submitted no later
third day. than the second day.
c.Illness after Public Holidays should bec.Medical Certs must be submitted for
subject to normal terms. any day's absence following a
public holiday.
d.Medical Certs to be longer than oned.Medical certs will be accepted for
week's duration. one week only.
e.Eligibility should not be based one.No change to service scale.
service scale.
f.Full pay for eight weeks for allf.Six weeks, not paid for the first three
existing staff. days and only 80% of basic pay.
g.Company/Union reserves the right tog.No - Entire cost falls on the Company
review Sick Pay Scheme and any
changes or amendments will be done
by agreement.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level following LCR 17572 and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in October 2004. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd October, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th January, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
- Union's position: Company's position:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has attempted to resolve the issue both at local and conciliation level. The Company has made little effort to move from their position.
2. The Company requested the members to sign contracts containing the Sick Pay Scheme that was in dispute and the decision by the Company not to pay the Christmas Bonus to our members because we are in dispute is appalling and mean spirited.
3. The Union is requesting that the practice of full pay for the duration of illness continue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has operated the scheme in a fair and reasonable manner since its introduction and feel the current scheme proposed is fair and reasonable.
2. The claim is unjustified as the current scheme is not substantially out of line with other schemes in operation along with the fact that the claim is precluded under Sustaining Progress.
3. The Company is unwilling to adjust its scheme as demanded by the Union as it feels that the scheme is a very reasonable and fair scheme which offers a benefit to its employees, one of which it is not legally obliged to offer. The issue of payment of Christmas Bonus is unrelated to the issue before the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both parties agreed that the Court should make recommendations on a number of specific elements of the sick pay scheme in dispute. Therefore, having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends that the Company's scheme as submitted in Appendix B of its submission should be amended with the following recommendations:-
Entitlement
- Employees with six months service should be eligible to participate in the scheme.
- Sick Pay Benefit should commence after three working days' absence, i.e. no payment for the first three working days illness. Illness following Public Holidays should not be treated any differently.
- Payment should be based on full basic (100%) pay less Social Welfare Benefit.
- Length of ServiceMax. Benefit
- 6 months - up to 5 years benefit 4 weeks sick pay
over 5 years benefit 8 weeks sick pay
- 6 months - up to 5 years benefit 4 weeks sick pay
- Medical certificate or social welfare certificate must be submitted for absences in excess of three working days.
- Medical certificates to cover absences of more than one week must be submitted on a weekly basis, except in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of management.
- Amendments to the scheme should be jointly agreed by the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th January, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.