FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SULZER PUMPS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Changes to the Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns changes to the existing Sick Pay Scheme following Labour Court Recommendation LRC20391. The Union said the Sick Pay Scheme had been closely monitored by a joint working group and that significant cost reductions have already been achieved. The Company maintain that by reducing the benefit in the early weeks of absence it would allow for greater benefit to individuals who require a longer absence. This 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 18th February 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th May 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the negotiations on the changes to the Sick Pay Scheme, the Company set out several options which excessively penalised their members over the first thirteen weeks of illness.
2. The Company’s proposals actually increases the overall cost of the scheme over the duration of the twenty six weeks.
3. The Company have already in place mechanisms to encourage people to avoid absenteeism through the Joint Monitoring Committee and have in the past suspended members from the scheme for excessive use.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has paid in full and fulfilled all its obligations under the current and all previous National Agreements including the Transitional Agreement.
2. The Company’s objective is to make a small saving on what is currently paid under the Sick Pay Scheme. This would also change the behaviour of people due to the fact that there is some financial impact on being absent from work.
3. The purpose of the Sick Pay Scheme is to alleviate financial hardship due to unavoidable absence from work due to illness. The Company’s proposal maintains that objective and helps sustain the Sick Pay Scheme into the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
By accepting Recommendation LCR20391, the Union committed itself to changes in the sick pay scheme directed at reducing costs.
The Court notes that the company have made a number of proposals directed at that objective and that the Union have put forward a counter proposal.
At conciliation the Company put forward a proposal which, had it been accepted by the Union, would have resolved the dispute. In the event, that proposal was not accepted and it was subsequently withdrawn.
The Court recommends that the position put forward by the Company at conciliation, as set out at column E, at Appendix 2 of the Union’s submission be reinstated and that it be accepted by the Union.
The Court Recommends accordingly
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
4th June, 2014.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.