FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. A hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No 20808.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case arises from a previous Labour Court Recommendation No 20808. Following the Recommendation the Union and the Company could not agree on the terms of a new sick pay scheme to replace the current 27 operating within the Company. The Company has referred the matter back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
- The Union said that any staff member moving to the new sick pay scheme from one of the 27 must do so voluntarily. The Company said that moving to the new scheme must be compulsory for all staff.
- As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th November 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th January 2015.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions reached agreement in 2004 on a sick pay scheme which determined that all stores opened after that date would have the 8 weeks’ sick pay per year with the first 3 days unpaid.
2. The members who are employed in locations where the 8-week scheme is not in operation have by their silence not expressed any desire to change schemes.
3. The Company needs to acknowledge the complexity of the matter and the history and nuances of the various schemes which make resolution a challenge for all parties involved.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company and the Unions met in accordance with the requirements of LCR20808 on two dates and the Company has significantly modified its proposal put at the first meeting.
2. The Company submits that the scheme including 8 weeks’ sick pay per annum less the first 3 days of each claim should be the standard scheme for application to all staff.
3. The Company cannot accept that migration to a standard scheme be voluntary nor be introduced over a delayed period to facilitate dilution nor to be incentivised.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both sides in this dispute. The Court notes the progress made between the parties in the course of the hearing on clarifying and reaching substantive agreement on the terms of a proposed new standardised sick pay scheme. The Court recommends that the parties commit those terms to paper, address the administrative issues identified in the course of the hearing and agree the content of the new scheme.
The Court notes that the parties did not reach agreement on the terms on which staff will transition to the new scheme. The Court is of the view that the parties need assistance to bring about a meeting of minds on this aspect of the dispute. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties agree, and failing agreement the Court will nominate, an expert facilitator to work with them over a period of no more than eight weeks from the date of this Recommendation, to develop transition arrangements for the conversion of all staff to the new agreed standardised sick pay scheme. In the event that agreement is not possible the Court will, based on a confidential report from the agreed facilitator, issue a definitive Recommendation on the issues in dispute within seven days of receipt of the report.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
28th January, 2015.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.