FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COVIDIEN IRELAND LIMITED TULLAMORE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Improved Sick Pay Scheme, ‘Working in Time’, Representation of Shop Stewards
BACKGROUND:
2. There are three elements to the Union's claim:
(1) the Union is seeking an improvement to the sick pay scheme which was last adjusted in October, 2006. The current scheme pays at 15 days @ 100%, 5 days @ 50% for 1 - 3 years' service up to 25 days @ 100%, 5 days @ 50% for 15+ years' service. An employee must have at least one year's service with the Company and must have an absence level of less than 10 days' absence in the previous 12 months rolling year. The Union is effectively seeking to double the leave at 100% and 6 x times at 50% , something that the Company says it cannot afford. The Company confirmed at the hearing that the 10 days' absence related to sickness only.
(2) working-in-time is a system whereby employees can work extra hours either before or after normal start/finish times and bank these hours to be used at their own discretion. The Company stopped the system in 2007 but, at the Union's request, introduced a new system in March, 2009, whereby employees were allowed to bank overtime hours in lieu of paid overtime when requested to work that overtime by the Company. The Union is seeking a return to the original system with workers being allowed to bank 2 days in any 3 months, time to be banked must be in either 2 or 4 hour blocks and time taken in half or full days.
(3) the Union is seeking that Shop Stewards can be represented by a Branch Official if they are the subject of a disciplinary hearing.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th November, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th September, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current sick-pay scheme is unfair as it renders some members ineligible even though they have not abused the scheme. There are a number of comparators which have better sick-pay schemes that the Company (details supplied to the Court).
2. The original working-in-time scheme remains open to certain individuals and groups in the Company.
3. Shop Stewards would prefer to be represented by a Branch Official for the entire duration of a disciplinary hearing rather than the certain instances allowed at present by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current sick pay scheme is already very costly (more that 8,000 days' absence per year). The Company cannot afford further costs.
2. The Company put in place a fair scheme in March, 2009, in regard to working-in-time. It makes no sense to allow employees to "work" and bank hours when they are not required by the Company.
3. Shop Stewards are allowed to be represented by Branch Officials at the latter stages of disciplinary hearings and all appeal meetings. The Company believes that Shop Stewards are sufficiently trained to represent each other.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both sides on the three claims before the Court and recommends as follows: -
1. Improved Sick Pay Scheme
The Union sought an improvement to the existing sick pay benefits to provide twice the number of weeks when full pay is paid and a six-fold increase in the number of weeks when half pay is paid. The Union also sought changes to the eligibility criteria and sought the inclusion of regular and rostered overtime payments in sick pay benefit for those on three cycle shifts.
The Court notes that there was some element of confusion surrounding the eligibility criteria for commencement of sick pay benefit/exclusion from the scheme. There appears to be a perception among the Union that absences of any nature in the previous year could potentially exclude an employee from the scheme. Furthermore, there was confusion surrounding the rate of benefit paid to those on three shift who regularly work an extra hour as part of their shift cycle.
For the avoidance of any doubt the Company confirmed for the Court that it is only where an employee has more than 10 days absence (i.e. certified and uncertified sick leave) in the previous year that they are excluded from the scheme. Furthermore, the Company confirmed that three shift workers are paid sick pay benefit at the rate of 40 hours per week (i.e. 39 hours at normal time plus one hour overtime). Consequently, in such circumstances regular and rostered overtime is included in sick pay benefit.
The Court notes that the current sick pay scheme in existence was negotiated and agreed by both parties in October, 2006, and consequently sees no reason to change the terms of the scheme at this time. Therefore, the Court rejects the claim.
2. Working In Time
The Union submitted a claim for the reinstatement of a “Working In Time” scheme, whereby employees at their own discretion decided to work extra time either before or after their normal working hours and to avail of accumulated time off at a later stage.
The Company withdrew this facility three years ago. In March, 2009, a new system was introduced whereby on an hour for hour basis time off in lieu may be availed of only where the Company specifically requests an employee to work overtime to meet production requirements.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that the system introduced in March, 2009, allows for time off to be taken to accommodate employee needs and in all the circumstances is a reasonable position for the Company to take. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend a re-instatement of the system, which operated prior to March 2009.
3. Representation For Shop Stewards
In the event of a disciplinary matter concerning a Shop Steward the Union sought that they should have the option of having a full time Union Official or Branch Organiser represent them at all stages of a disciplinary/grievance process.
In response, the Company clarified that it was willing to allow representation for Shop Stewards by a full time Union Official at the latter stages of a disciplinary process or where there is an allegation of gross misconduct and at appeal hearings, but not at other stages of the process.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that the Company’s position on this matter is fair and reasonable and accordingly does not recommend in favour of the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th September, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.