FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LTD - AND - MANDATE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Sick pay terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to sick pay terms. The Unions contend that the Employer has unilaterally taken the decision to alter the terms of a collective agreement which outlines Workers' sick pay arrangements with particular reference to the number of waiting days before a claim for illness benefit can be submitted to the Department of Social Protection and Family Affairs. The Employer rejects the Unions' claim arguing that it has acted wholly in line with changes in Government policy whereby the number of waiting days has increased from three to six days.
The dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th May, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd July, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unacceptable for the Employer to alter the terms of a collective agreement without prior agreement.
2. It makes for poor industrial relations for the Employer to unilaterally alter the terms of an established collective agreement.
3. The Unions contend that the Employer has previously made unilateral changes to sick pay arrangements.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that its policy on implementing sick pay schemes has not changed since it was first agreed with the Unions in 2012.
2. The Employer asserts that this is a cost-increasing claim which is precluded in the terms of a previously negotiated wage increase.
3. The Employer is not in a financial position to concede the Unions' claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Interpretation of Sick Pay Scheme
The Unions argue that Management has breached the terms of the agreed Sick Pay Schemes by applying a notional Social Welfare deduction in respect of each employee’s 4th, 5thand 6thdays of illness. They argue that the Agreements provides for the payment to employees of full pay after three consecutive days' sick leave net of any social welfare entitlements payable in respect of those days. They argue that as no Social Welfare payment is made in respect of those days no deduction from pay may be made
Management argues that the Sick Pay Schemes entitle it to deduct a notional amount from sick pay entitlement in respect of the 4th, 5thand 6thdays of illness.
Recommendation
Having considered the submissions of both sides to this dispute the Court finds that the terms of theSick Pay Schemes do not support Management’s contention.
Accordingly the Court recommends in favour of the Unions’ claim.
Standardisation of Sick Pay Schemes
The Court notes that, for various historical reasons, there are currently in the region of 26 Sick Pay Schemes in place in this employment. Management seeks to engage with the Unions to agree a new standardised Scheme applicable to all employees. The Unions have indicated a willingness to engage in such discussions with a view to reaching agreement on such a scheme.
Recommendation
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties engage with a view to reaching agreement. The Court further recommends that such discussions should take place over a period of 14 weeks from the date of this Recommendation at which point all outstanding issues if any should be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
23rd July 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.