FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WEXFORD CREAMERY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Paid maternity leave
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for the "top-up" of workers who are on maternity leave, i.e. to make up the difference between a worker's State maternity benefit and her normal pay over 26 weeks. The claim was first made on behalf of an individual in 2006. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that it could not afford to increase costs.
The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th March, 2008, in Wexford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Wexford Creamery is a major employer and should be setting standards of best practice like similar companies in relation to equality and family friendly policies.
2. The number of female workers who could be involved in the claim is very small so the cost to the Company would not be great. The loss to the individual, however, is significant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a highly competitive market and all costs must be carefully controlled.Furthermore, the claim is cost-increasing and is outside the terms of Towards 2016.
2.The Company adheres to all elements of the National Agreements and expects that the Union, in turn, would do the same.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union has not provided the Court with any information upon which it could hold that the benefit now being claimed is a "norm" in comparable employments or that the claim has merit on the basis of fair comparison.
Nevertheless, the Court notes that the Company has made an offer of a once-off and without precedent payment of €500, backdated by three years from the date of the conciliation conference, to any relevant employee.
The Court recommends that the Company's offer should be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
31st March, 2008______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.