FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Reversal of policy & retrospective payments to staff affected.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the manner in which the Employer coordinates its sick pay scheme with the Workers' social welfare entitlements. The Workers referred this case to the Labour Court on 24th September, 2013, 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 26th March, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer is seeking to deduct from the Workers the value of a social welfare payment to which they are not entitled.
2. The Union is not aware of any other private or public employer who does this.
3.The Workers should have the money incorrectly deducted returned to them.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is obliged to deduct from sick pay any social welfare benefit which the Workers are entitled to.
2. Concession of this cost-increasing claim is barred by the terms of the Public Service Agreement.
3. Concession of this claim would have serious cost implications for the Employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim by the Union that the HSE has failed to abide by its own terms and conditions in refusing to co-ordinate sick pay with social welfare entitlements of staff. The main point of the Union’s argument relates to the deduction of the value of Illness Benefit from the sick pay of employees who are in receipt of certain social welfare benefits which disentitle them to Illness Benefit. The Union sought a reversal of the policy and retrospective payments to all staff affected.
Management stated that in accordance with HSE financial regulations, HSE is obligated to abate the relevant Department of Social Protection benefit value once an entitlement exists. On 24thJuly 2013, in response to the Union’s claim, HSE Galway PCCC stated that it was of the view that this matter could only be resolved at national level and stated that HSE West Management were not in a position to attend at conciliation.
The Court notes that the issue was also raised by SIPTU at national level around the same time. The Court is of the view that this issue is not appropriate for a Section 20(1) referral and furthermore the appropriate forum for dealing with the issue is at national level between the parties in accordance with the normal industrial relations procedures.
The Court recommends that the issue should be addressed in that forum.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th April, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.