FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MC CARREN & CO LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Sick Pay Benefit
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that sick pay should be paid by the Company to its member in line with the terms of the Union/Company Agreement. The worker commenced employment with the Company in May, 2002. From February, 2008 to June, 2008 the worker was absent from work for a period of time due to illness. He was not paid for this absence. The Union wrote to the Company stating its position that the worker was entitled to sick pay under the terms of the Agreement. The Company did not attend the Court hearing. A letter from the Company was read to the Court. It stated that since 1999 no agreement existed between the parties and that it only paid sick pay as a result of an accident at work.
On the 10th March 2009 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A labour Court hearing took place on the 9th June 2009.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 An Agreement between the parties came into being on 5th August 1998. Under the clear and explicit terms of this agreement it is still in effect between the parties.
2 The present sick pay entitlements agreed in appendix B of that document must be honoured.
3 The Company has in fact paid sick pay to employees since 1999.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company has no agreements with the Union and has ceased dealing with it.
2 The Company does not pay sick pay unless it is the result of an accident at work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the worker’s claim for payment of sick pay in accordance with the Company’s sick pay scheme agreed with the SIPTU as part of a comprehensive Company/Union Agreement signed off in August 1998.
Appendix B of the Agreement states:
- Sick Pay:
“For the first twelve months of employment with the Company, an employee will not receive any sick pay. Sick pay will only apply to permanent employees.
The amount of sick pay will be 90% of basic pay, less social welfare, to run for six weeks. With each absence there will be three waiting days i.e. unpaid. If the employee is out sick because of industrial or occupational injury at the Company, then the Company, at its discretion, may pay sick from the first day of absence, provided the usual reporting of an accident requirements and safety requirements are met.”
The Court finds it regrettable that the employer failed to attend the hearing to investigate the claim. The employer did furnish the Court with a written statement setting out its position. It stated that the Company has no agreement with SIPTU, that it has ceased all dealings with the Unions since 1999 and that it has no sick pay scheme in operation for manual workers.
Having examined the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that while the Company sought to repudiate the terms of the 1998 Agreement referred to above that Agreement has not been revised in accordance with its terms and consequently is still in existence.
Therefore, as the Court finds that the 1998 Agreement still prevails, the worker should be paid sick pay benefit in accordance with its terms, as cited above.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th July, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.