FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHANNON SWIMMING & LEISURE CENTRE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Introduction of Sick Pay Scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. In October 2005 the Union sought from the Employer the introduction of a non contributory sick pay scheme of four weeks paid leave in each year. Management at the Centre responded to this claim by advising the Union that it was not in a position to introduce a sick pay scheme. The Union referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission. The Employer responded to this by contending that the claim was cost increasing under the national Sustaining Progress Agreement and wished to discuss the matter firstly at local level. The Union agreed to local discussions which took place in October, 2006. The Employer refused the Union's 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 could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th January, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The need and right of workers to be paid when off sick is well established. It is on a par with the right to paid holidays and proper work breaks. IBEC confirmed in its own research in 2004 that 70% of employers provide a sick pay scheme. The Union's information is that this statistic has improved.
2 Management has based its case on the misconception that Towards 2016 precludes this claim. The right to a sick pay scheme and the legitimacy with which it is regarded by all social partners is stated in Section 3.1 of Towards 2016.
3 Staff who are not paid for sick leave cannot afford to stay away from work and there is financial pressure on them to come in. This is not in the interest of the sick employee and is unfair.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Centre is not in a sound financial position. There is a shortfall in funding that is met through fundraising and the Centre has been operating at a loss.
2 Successive national pay agreements have recognised that companies in a poor financial state are not in a position to pay cost increasing claims in the area of benefits. This is outlined in Section 3 of the Towards 2016 Agreement.
3 The Employer values its employees and the contribution they make. Management has paid in full all of the national agreements up to and including Towards 2016. When circumstances allow, Management reviews the benefits of employees. Following the last review, it was decided to grant all employees an additional day's annual leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
Management submitted to the Court that the Union’s claim for the introduction of a sick pay scheme was cost-increasing in nature and, as such, precluded by the terms of Clause 1.4 of the pay agreement associated with the Towards 2016 National Partnership Agreement. It stated to the Court that the Centre was not in a financial position to incur the costs of a sick pay scheme.
Clause 3 of that Agreement provides that Unions are not precluded by Section 1.4 from making claims for the introduction of sick pay schemes where none exist or from making claims for the improvement of such schemes where these are substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments. The Agreement also provides for consideration to be given to the costs associated with the introduction of such a scheme and the capacity of the enterprise to absorb these costs and furthermore, the implications for attendance.
These provisions have been applied in formulating the Court’s recommendation
The Court recommends that the Centre should implement a sick pay scheme with immediate effect. The scheme should provide for 4 weeks pay less Social Welfare entitlements, to be applicable to employees with over six months service; the first three days of illness should be excluded from payment.
The Court further recommends that if there is any appreciable increase in absenteeism following the implementation of this recommendation, the position will have to be reviewed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.