FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WESTERN ALZHEIMERS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Basic Pay Reductions, Hours of Work and Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21 December 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15 February 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The paid lunch break is an established custom and practice.
2. The two self-certified sick days within a twelve month period is an established custom and practice and the contractual paid sick leave entitlements should be paid with no change to contracts of employment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The financial situation of the company requires some financial savings.
2. The proposed reduction in the entitlement to sick pay and the non-payment of employees rest breaks is reasonable in the serious financial circumstances the company currently finds itself.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given detailed consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court notes the fact that both parties acknowledge the difficult financial position of the employer. The proposals before the Court are asserted by the employer to derive from a need to reduce costs.
The Court is asked to consider a proposed change to existing sick pay arrangements and also to consider a proposal to alter existing arrangements for a thirty minute daily lunch break.
The proposed amendment to sick pay arrangements includes the introduction of a standardised entitlement of three weeks per annum. This proposal will have no impact on one site employing 40 (approx.) staff where the annual entitlement is three weeks annually. The proposal will however impact a number of staff on the employer’s other site where annual allowances are greater than three weeks. The Court has been advised that even on that second site there is no appreciable pattern of sick leave occurring which is greater than three weeks per annum. The Court concludes therefore that the proposed change cannot contribute significantly to cost reduction and does not recommend its concession.
The Court has also been asked to support a proposal that the first two days of absence in each incidence of absence should not be paid. Those days are paid currently. In addition the employer proposes that existing arrangements which allow staff to avail of two ‘self-certified’ days sick leave each year should be terminated.
The Court has been advised by the employer that sick leave patterns generally in the employment are not of such a nature as to be considered abnormally high. The Court has not been provided with details of the occurrence of ‘self-certified’ days and neither has the Court been supplied with evidence that non-payment for the first two days of absence is common practice in the sector.
The Court, in circumstances where it does not have details of the impact in practice on the persons affected by this proposal, is not in a position to recommend an alteration to long established practices as regards the first two days of absence and the taking of ‘self-certified’ days. The Court does however recommend that the parties engage urgently to consider the operation of the current sick pay scheme and to consider whether absence control and monitoring arrangements are fit for purpose and effective.
The employer has also asked the Court to support a proposal to alter a currently paid 30 minute break such that staff would not be paid for that break in the future. The parties at the hearing of the Court highlighted issues associated with this proposal which have relevance for the employer’s obligations under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and which could also affect earnings. The Court recommends that the parties engage to address this issue as a matter of urgency such that rostering / working arrangements of the nature referred to by the employer at the hearing are made available to staff which, if taken up by the staff concerned, would protect earnings as far as possible while ensuring that staff enjoy an entitlement to breaks free from work. Such a break would not normally attract payment.
In the event that the outcome of those discussions results in a loss of earnings to the staff concerned the parties should engage to address that matter also taking account of individuals’ decisions as regards uptake of rostering / working arrangements offered as a means of minimising loss.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
LS______________________
23 February 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.