Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Multi-National Manufacturing Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00006505-001

17/08/2016

The claim relates to the application of the Respondent's policy regarding the payment of discretionary sick leave benefit.

The Complainant was employed, as a Product Builder, to work in 39 hour week on a 24 x 5 shift basis. The Complainant returned from leave to her position on night shift on 25 May 2015.

The company forecast a period of high-volume production in Q3 and Q4 of 2015 in preparation for the launch of a new product. In order to increase capacity to meet demand a temporary Weekend Shift of 24 hours (2 days by 12 hours) was introduced.

The option of moving to this temporary shift was open to all Product Builders. The Complainant volunteered to move to this shift and she commenced working on the Weekend Shift with effect from 27 June 2015. Following the successful product launch in January 2016, the Company returned to normal production schedules. This saw the ending of the temporary weekend shift.

All employees on the temporary weekend shift were informed on 23 January 2016 of the Company's intention to terminate the weekend shift with effect from 21 March 2016. The Complainant was given the option of returning to a 39 hour working week on a 24 x 5 basis (Monday to Friday). She verbally advised your supervisor of her intention to resign her position due to commuting difficulties. However, the Complainant subsequently stated a preference for a position on the day shift and she was informed that a request would be accommodated.

The Complainant commenced sick leave on 13 March 2016 while still on the temporary weekend shift. The Complainant remained on sick leave until 18 November 2016 when she resigned from her position with the Company.

In her submission to the Hearing, the Complainant stated that her complaint related to the fact that she had received only 7 weeks of Sick Pay Leave, when, in her view, she was entitled to 16 weeks Sick Pay Leave.

The Complainant contends that it was unreasonable of the Respondent to link the Sick Pay benefits to her weekend shift contract when that finished on 17 March 2016.

In response to the claim, the Respondent confirmed that the Complainant was entitled to participate in the Company Absence and Sick Pay Benefit Policy. As the Complainant had commenced employment with the Respondent on 10 January 2011 she first became eligible for sick pay benefits on 10 July 2011.

The Respondent stated that in accordance with the Sick Pay policy the Complainant was, at the time of raising her complaint, entitled to sick pay benefit applicable to the 4/5 year employment category in the Policy. The Respondent confirmed that this entitled the Complainant to maximum sick pay benefit of 390 hours (based on a 39 hour working week).

The Respondent further stated in evidence that the Companies Absence and Sick Pay Benefit policy states that: job sharing and part-time employees benefits are pro rata that, based on the number of hours they are contracted to work per week.

The Respondent stated that in the Complainant's case her available sick pay benefit was 237.9 hours, based on a pro rata benefit at 61% of the available sick pay hours (390 hours in her case)

The Respondent submitted in evidence that the Complainant received 241.80 hours of sick pay in the period between week 12 and week 19 of 2016. According to the Respondent, this meant   the Complainant had actually received 3.9 hours of sick pay benefit in excess of her entitlement.

Finally, in conclusion, the Respondent stated that any new benefit entitlement only applies on the employees return to work. In the case of the Complainant, the Respondent stated that when she commenced sick leave on 13 March 2016 she was still on the temporary weekend shift and, as a result of a failure to return to work from sick leave, she never took up the position on her new shift. Therefore, the Respondent contends that the Complainant, not only had no entitlement to increased sick leave benefit, but, in fact, had received over and above her entitlement to that point.

Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced at the Hearing, I am satisfied that the decision in relation to the Complainant's claim rests in the interpretation of the Respondents Absence and Sick Pay Benefit Policy, a copy of which was presented in evidence.

Having reviewed the Policy I am satisfied that the following apply:

• Sick Pay is a discretionary benefit.
• Job sharing and part-time employees' benefits are pro rata, based on the number of hours there are contracted to work per week.
• Any increase in sick pay benefit entitlements does not become active until the employee has returned to work.

I have carefully considered the Complainant's situation, and her claim relating to it, in the light of the above specific aspects of the Absence and Sick Pay Benefit Policy of the Respondent. Having done so, I am satisfied that the Complainant received and, in fact, exceeded the sick leave benefit entitlement applicable to her for the period of leave which commenced 13 March 2016.

I am also satisfied that in order to qualify for any additional or increased benefit in this regard the Complainant would, as stated clearly within the policy, have had to returned to work first.

While I can understand the Complainant may be dissatisfied with this interpretation of the Policy, I find that the Respondent has applied the terms of the policy in a fair and even-handed manner consistent with the terms of the policy.

Based on the findings and conclusions are set out above I find that the Respondent was fully justified in the application of the Absence and Sick Pay Benefit Policy in the manner in which it did in the Complainant's case.

Consequently I reject the Complainant's claim and find in favour of the Respondent.

Sick Pay Benefit Poilcies