FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KEELINGS LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Attendance Control Programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Attendance Control Programme (ACP) in place in Keelings. 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 15th February, 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th March, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Company has not considered many circumstances, such as individuals with heart problems, broken bones, road traffic accidents or most medically certified absences, to be properly taken into account before putting a person through the Programme.
2. The existing ACP does not need to be changed. The Company needs to operate the Programme in the manner that was intended.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. One of the key objectives of the ACP was to maintain absence levels on the site at 3%. This has never been accomplished.
2. Absence levels are a key performance indicator set out by the customer. The weekly trend reported to the customer in this regard did not reflect well due to the high levels of absenteeism.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to the terms and operation of the Respondent’s Absence Control Programme( “the Programme”) which has been in place at its Ballymun site since 2007 and is subject to a collective agreement between the parties. The Programme is very structured and includes a series of triggers that prompt the monitoring of employees’ attendance for specified periods and subsequent disciplinary action where unacceptable levels of absence continue.
The Programme was revised in 2010. Thereafter, the parties engaged in comprehensive negotiations with the assistance of the Conciliation Service of the then Labour Relations Commission in relation to a range of matters in 2012. In that context, they agreed to commence discussions in relation to a further potential review of the Programme. A subsequent Labour Court Recommendation (LCR20320) specifically addressed a number of the issues that had been the subject of conciliation and also recommended that all other proposals (including the proposal to review the Programme) should be accepted without amendment. Thereafter, between September 2012 and April 2013, the parties engaged in detailed discussions which did not result in an agreement.
From the Company’s perspective, the Programme in its current format is not achieving its stated objectives as absence levels continue to average between 5 and 6% at the Ballymun site. Since 2013, four employees have been dismissed and two others were excluded from the sick pay scheme for 12 months as a consequence of their poor levels of attendance.
The Union’s position is that the Programme is not being operated correctly by the Company. In particular, the Union submits that there are a number of cases where a worker has been absent for a genuine reason but that reason was not properly considered by the Company. The Programme, it believes, is being applied in a blanket fashion without due consideration being given to individual cases with the result that Workers are not given appropriate support where this is warranted. In support of its submission, the Union made reference to individuals who had been absent, for example, because of cardiac issues or following a road traffic accident. The Union is of the view that many such cases were dealt with too harshly and the Company demonstrated a high degree of inflexibility when applying the Programme to the Workers concerned. The Union also listed a number of other specific concerns it has in relation to the manner in which the Programme is currently being operated.
Recommendation
It is self-evidently the case that there is a protracted history to the present dispute. The Parties have endeavoured on a number of occasions, between themselves and with the assistance of the Conciliation Service of the LRC/WRC, to address the root issues underlying the dispute but without making much progress to date.
Both Parties indicated to the Court, nevertheless, that they are willing to continue to work together in an attempt to resolve their differences in relation to the Programme and its operation. They both also indicated to the Court that they would welcome the appointment of an independent Facilitator nominated by the Court to assist with this process. On that basis, the Court recommends that the Parties engage with the agreed Facilitator at the earliest opportunity with a view to reaching agreement on appropriate changes to the provisions of the Programme and the manner in which the revised Programme should be implemented.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
15th May 2017______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.