FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ORGANON (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - UNITE / AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Access to the Company Doctor.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to the Company's 1990 relocation from Glasnevin to Swords the Workers had unlimited access to a Company Doctor who had his surgery in Glasnevin. Since moving to Swords, employees no longer enjoy the same level of access to the Company Doctor who now attends the plant twice a week for two hours each time. There is currently a full time Occupational Health Nurse on site through whom referrals to the Company Doctor are made.
This 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 18th June 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th October 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Section 17.7 of the Company / Union Agreement states that 'employees may attend, free of charge, the Company Doctor at his surgery'.
2. Workers are regularly denied access to the Company Doctor for general medical visits at the plant.
3.The Workers are expected to comply with the Company / Union Agreement and so the Company should also be required to respect the Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The medical services provided by the Company in Swords have always been different to those provided 18 years ago in Glasnevin.
2. The Company provides a very wide range of preventative medical benefits and medical insurance for Workers.
3.Concession of this claim would add significant additional cost at a time when the Company is under significant pressure to reduce its operating costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the Union has relied on the strict provisions of the Company / Union Agreement in support of its claim, this Court has consistently held that the manner in which a collective agreement is applied over time is as important as what is contained in writing.
In that regard it is clear to the Court that the current arrangements for the provision of medical services have been in place since 1994 at least. In the Court's view those arrangements are reasonable and there is no compelling case as to why they should now be changed.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th November, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.