FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONEY ADVICE & BUDGETING SERVICE (MABS) REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL MANAGEMENT FORUM (NMF) - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Sick pay entitlements for new entrants.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members in relation to changes made to the Employer's sick pay scheme. It is the Union's claim that the Employer has unilaterally taken the decision to alter the terms of the sick pay scheme for new employees entering into the Company after 1st May, 2014 without proper negotiation and agreement from the Union. The Union is seeking common sick pay terms across the board for all employees and has expressed a willingness to negotiate with the Employer. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that it is within its remit to alter its sick pay scheme for new entrants without prior agreement from the Union.
The 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 1st December, 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th January, 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Employer unilaterally altered the terms of its sick pay scheme for new entrants without negotiation or agreement.
2. The Union is seeking the application of the original sick pay scheme to all employees.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that it has previously aligned the majority of its terms and conditions of employment with those applicable within the Public Sector and has altered its sick pay scheme for new entrants in line with current Public Sector terms and conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
At the outset of the hearing the National Management Forum (NMF) confirmed, notwithstanding correspondence shared with the Court, that it was mandated to negotiate on behalf of all fifty one MABS companies in respect of the matter before the Court.
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter before the Court concerns the implementation, with effect from 1stMay 2014, of change without agreement to the terms of the sick pay scheme to apply to new entrants.
The NMF confirmed to the Court that the employers in the within matter who they represent are private companies not governed by the terms of legislation or agreements governing the terms and conditions of employment of Public Servants. The NMF confirmed that in the case of all companies represented before the Court the pay adjustments applied to Public Servants in recent years have not been applied to staff employed by the companies. The NMF further confirmed that the new Public Service sick pay scheme has not been implemented for employees already in employment at 1stMay 2014 but that it had been applied to employees recruited after that date.
The NMF confirmed that all companies represented before the Court recognise the Trade Union for the purpose of negotiating terms and conditions of employment for its members.
The NMF confirmed that no issue of funding was the cause of its decision to alter the sick pay terms to apply to staff recruited after 1stMay 2014. The NMF outlined to the Court its view that it was reasonable, taking account of adjustments to the Public Service sick pay scheme, to adjust the terms of employment to apply to persons recruited after 1stMay 2014 and to do so without agreement with the Trade Union.
The Trade Union submitted that it is recognised for the purpose of negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of its members employed by the companies and that consequently no change should have been made to sick pay terms for new entrants in advance of agreement with the Trade Union to do so. The Trade Union confirmed that it was willing to engage with the employer in this case to seek to negotiate in respect of sick pay terms.
The Court takes particular note of the fact that, notwithstanding the parties reached agreement at the then Labour Relations Commission in June 2015 that they would meet and engage in discussions concerning sick pay terms for new recruits, such engagement has not happened.
Taking all of the circumstances of this matter into account and noting that it is common case that the Trade Union is recognised for the purpose of negotiating terms and conditions of employment for its members, the Court recommends that the sick pay terms applying to staff recruited before 1stMay 2014 should also be applied to staff recruited after that date. In addition, the Court recommends that the parties should engage through normal procedures to seek agreement on any proposed change to those sick pay terms for those staff.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
29th January 2018______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.