FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRIDGESTONE IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYER CONFEDERATION) - AND - THOMAS BRENNAN (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Sick Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by a Worker against the decision of the Employer not to pay him sick pay for been absent from work for 6 days in July, 2010.
The employer's position is that it was entitled to stop the payment of sick pay to the Worker given his excessive absenteeism of 52 days in the preceding 12 months.
On the 12th October 2012 the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd January, 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The company handbook is clear on what payments come under the sick pay scheme.
2. The Workers period of sickness does not exceed the limit set down in the sick pay policy.
3. The Worker telephoned his Supervisor to inform him of his illness. He was in hospital and only had a short time to make the call.
.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was absent from work for 52 days in a 12 month period up to July 2010 and he failed to follow company procedures. He was given a specific warning about his absence.
2. The issue of non-payment of sick pay has not been raised with the company through its grievance procedures.
3. The Company is entitled to stop pay for sickness absence that is both sporadic and also where the reasons for absence are varied and not related to one particular condition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that documentation recording the procedures employed in this case were deficient. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company take steps to bring its procedures and practices into line with modern standards in this regard.
Taking the context in which the Company withheld sick pay in this case together with the delay in bringing the matter before the Court and the fact that the worker has been restored to the sick pay scheme, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Furthermore the Court finds that the worker was offered an opportunity to appeal against the Company’s decision and chose not to do so. Accordingly the Court does not uphold this aspect of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
30th January, 2013Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.