FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAUSCH AND LOMB IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Caredoc cover system.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of a multinational group and manufactures contact lenses in Waterford. The terms and conditions of employment at the plant include access to the Company's General Practitioners on a 24/7 basis, the cost of which is bourne in full by the Company. During 2006 the Practice limited access to normal surgery hours of 9.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday and introduced a 'Caredoc' system for access to an on-call Doctor outside normal surgery hour at a cost of €60 per appointment to patients. The dispute relates to this charge, the Union considers the Company ought to pay under the terms of the Doctors Scheme while Management considers it is not obliged to pay.
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 1st September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th November, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The unlimited medical attendants scheme is an integral part of the terms and conditions of employment and therefore should not be interfered with as it has worked well for many years for both the Employees and their families.
2. If an Employee needs to be absent from work and cannot attend the Company GP during office hours they must attend the Caredoc on the day or night in question in order to obtain a medical certificate at a cost to them of €60. This affects those Employees on night shift or weekends to a greater extent.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The commitment on unlimited medical cover cannot reasonably be interpreted as an open-ended commitment regardless of increasing medical costs.
2. The challenge for the Company is to reduce costs in order to remain competitive and protect employment levels at the plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the use of the Caredoc system should, in general, be an infrequent occurrence.
The parties should, accordingly, meet to agree the situations in which the use of Caredoc (as opposed to waiting for the GP service) should occur. What is agreed should be incorporated into the Company / Union agreement.
In cases which fall under those agreed criteria as exceptional, the cost of the visit should be shared equally between the Company and the worker.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th December, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.