FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : L 3 COMMUNICATIONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Sick Pay Scheme, Service Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. L3 communications/ EsscoCollins Ltd has been based in Kilkishen, Co Clare for nearly 30 years. It is a subsidiary of a large U.S. company specialising in the provision of Radome Technology to the U.S. Military, NATO and other worldwide government agencies. It employs approximately 30 people of which 16 are General Operatives represented by SIPTU in this claim.
In May, 2005 the Union wrote to the Company seeking improvements in sick pay, pension entitlements annual leave etc. The Union met with the Company on 20th February, 2006. In a letter dated the 8th March, 2006 the Company rejected the Union's arguments.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences on 3rd October , 2006 and in December, 2006 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the issues of the Sick Pay Scheme and Service Pay were 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 13th December, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believes that under Section 3.1 of Towards 2016 the claim is allowed for. Section 3.1 states "Unions are not precluded by Section1.4 from making claims for the introduction of pension or 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."
2. Staff in the Company have in the past been paid for six months sick leave absence whilst General Operatives now have five weeks sick pay in any calendar year. The Union are seeking a move to the area of 6-13 weeks paid leave when ill, which it is claimed is an accepted minimum in unionised employments in the area.
3. There is currently a monetary method of recognising service up to 20 years. The Union are seeking the indexation of these figures going forward. Since 2004 there is an additional days leave granted after 10 years service. The Union are seeking additional days leave at 15 years, 20 years, 25 years and 30 years
service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In an Agreement concluded in 2004 between the Company and shop stewards the Company agreed to increase the Sick Pay scheme from 4 weeks to 5 weeks. Due to an oversight the Company failed to adhere to this Agreement but have since rectified the position and paid any monies due to employees who only received 4 weeks sick pay at the time.
2. The Company regard the matter of Service Pay as a cost-increasing claim but have indicated that it would consider increasing the current monetary amounts by €10 for up to 10 years service and €20 for those with 20 plus service years.
3. The Company is not prepared to countenance concession of any cost-increasing claims which are precluded under the stabilisation clause of Towards 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues before the Court concern the Union’s claim for an improvement in (a) Company’s Sick Pay Scheme; (b) Service Pay Scheme and (c) Service Annual Leave.
Both parties agreed to refer a claim for an improvement in the Company’s Pension Scheme to conciliation and consequently, this was not a claim before the Court.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court recommends:
(a) Company’s Sick Pay Scheme
Due to the high level of absenteeism in the Company, the Court recommends that this claim should be deferred. The Court recommends that a review of absenteeism levels should be conducted at the end of 2008 and if it shows a decrease down to Industry norms (less than 5%), then the Union’s claim for an improvement to 6 weeks sick pay benefit should be conceded at that time.
The Company offered to increase the annual service pay to the following:
1 – 3 years of service €110 per annum
3 – 5 years of service €180 per annum
5 – 10 years of service €290 per annum
10 – 20 years of service €380 per annum
20 plus years of service €440 per annum
The Court recommends that the Company’s proposed increase in Service Pay should be accepted with effect from the due payment date in 2007 and recommends in favour of the Union’s claim for future indexation increases going forward.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th January, 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.