FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEAHYS PHARMACY - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Sick Pay Arrangements
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Leahy's Pharmacy and MANDATE Trade Union in relation to Sick Pay arrangements within the Company. The Union is seeking the introduction of a sick pay scheme that provides six months paid sick leave for staff.
Management's position is that the previous owners had a discretionary sytem in place with regard tothe payment of sick pay. It has offered a sick pay scheme that will provide five paid sick days per year.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 14th March, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th November, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The reality of the situation that exists within the Company is that workers were paid for all sick leave. As the current owners took over the business as a going concern the Union is seeking that this practice continues on the basis of the obligations set out under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations.
2 The Union's claim of introducing a sick pay scheme that provides six months full pay is in line with previous custom and practice within the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The previous owners did not apply an unlimited paid sick leave scheme. There were few sick leave absences and a discretionary system was in place with regard to the payment of sick pay.
2 In an attempt to resolve the dispute the Company is prepared to introduce a sick pay scheme of five days paid sick leave per annum. This is a reasonable offer and in line with comparable employments.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not accept that a custom and practice, as the term is generally understood, exists on sick pay entitlements within the employment.
In reality the Union's claim is forthe introduction of a sick-pay scheme. In that regard the Court recommends that the employer introduce a sick pay scheme providing for four weeks sick leave per year at full pay less social welfare. All sick leave should be covered by a medical certificate.
The scheme should apply to all employees who have completed their probationary period. The scheme should not operate in respect of the first three days of any illness.
The operation of the scheme should be reviewed by the parties after it has been in operation for a period of two years.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th December 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.