FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PROCTER & GAMBLE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1. Closure of Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Scheme to new entrants. 2. Decision to replace DB Pension with a Defined Contribution Scheme (DC). 3. Sick Pay Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Proctor and Gamble (represented by IBEC and SIPTU in relation to changes to Pension and Sick Pay Schemes. Management's position is that due to funding difficulties and deficits within the Defined Benefit Pension Scheme, it is necessary to introduce a Defined Contribution Scheme for new entrants. In relation to sick pay entitlements, management intend to seek a medical certificate for all absences.
The Union's position is that the changes to the Pension Scheme were introduced without any consultation or negotiation with the union and that the issue of sick leave is covered by a collective agreement concluded between the parties and management's intention in this regard are at variance with the agreement.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 5th August, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th November 2011, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union accepts the current realities within the Pension Schemes yet no changes should be made unilaterally. If there are difficulties in the future they should be dealt by the appropriate consultation and negotiation.
2 The issues relating to sick leave entitlements are provided for in a collective agreement concluded between the parties. The Union is clear that a medical certificate is required on the fourth day of illness and not the first as is being claimed by management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The decision to change the DB Scheme to a DC Scheme is a Company decision that was made at global level. There was no negotiation possible at local level as the level of Company funding required to meet deficits in the DB Scheme was not sustainable into the future.
2 The parties had discussions in 2009 relating to the level of absenteeism and the difficulties scheduling production in such circumstances. Management is of the view that the arrangements agreed at that time were a replacement for the sick pay provisions of the collective agreement and that a medical certificate would be required on the first day of each absence.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends as follows in relation to the Union's claims: -
Sick Pay
The Court notes that the parties entered into an agreement whereby new terms and conditions to take effect on 1st January 2010. This agreement provides, in effect, that a medical certificate should be furnished from the fourth day of illness. The Court cannot accept that the agreement was formally amended so as to provide that medical certification must be provided from the first day of illness. In the court's view the agreement should be applied in accordance with its terms unless and until it is renegotiated through normal industrial relations procedures.
Absenteeism levels are clearly a matter of concern and it is not unreasonable for the Company to seek to address this problem. The Court recommends that the parties should enter into negotiations with a view to agreeing arrangements directed at bringing about a significant reduction in the rate of absenteeism. Any arrangement agreed should be formalised by way of an amendment to the collective agreement between the parties.
Pension Scheme
It is noted that the proposed changes are to apply to new entrants only. While the Court acknowledges the validity of the Union's position in relation to the unilateral nature of decision take, it does not see any practical basis upon which it can recommend a reversal of that decision. The Court does, however, recommend that any further proposed changes to pension entitlements should be the subject of discussions with the Union with a view to reaching agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th December 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.