FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ERVIA - AND - ICTU GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Requalification period for access to Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the requalification period for access to the Company Sick Pay Scheme.
- The Unions contend that the requalification period for accessing the Sick Pay Scheme is governed by the terms of the Response 2000 Framework Agreement (R2000). It submits that changes to that Agreement are regulated by its terms and that no such changes have been agreed under its terms since its introduction some eighteen years ago.
The Employer contends that the changes to the requalification period are not material in nature and consequently can be and were introduced through the adoption of a new sick pay policy.
- 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 4 May 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21 June 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The R2000 Agreement provides that neither party can unilaterally amend its terms. The Agreement can only be amended through the procedures set out at Clause 1.5 of R2000. They submit that the Company has unilaterally altered the terms of the Sick Pay Scheme in a manner that infringes the terms of the Agreement.
2. R2000 must be adhered to as to do otherwise would undermine all the existing agreements and destabilise industrial relations generally within the Company.
3. The changes to the Sick Pay Scheme are material changes and have a serious adverse effect on the earnings of the workers affected at a most vulnerable time in their lives.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The Employer said it approached the Unions in early 2015 with a suite of policy changes which included the revised sick pay requalification period at issue before the Court. It submits therefore that the changes were well flagged to the Unions and they were at all times aware of the changes being introduced.
2. It submits that the Unions, when notified of the changes, raised no objections to them and subsequently acquiesced in their application to various members of staff. It submits that it is not now legitimate for the Unions to belatedly raise objections to changes they did not object to when introduced.
3. It submits that the impugned changes to the Sick Pay Scheme are not material in nature and can be effected through the adoption and publication of revised policy documents as was done in this case. Accordingly, it denies infringing the terms of the R2000 Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that the R2000 Agreement governs the conduct of industrial relations within the Company. Clause 1.2 of the Agreement states:
- “The purpose of the Agreement is to set down the Work Practices, Procedures, Rates of Pay and Conditions of Employment for all employees of Bord Gais” (as ERVIA was then called).
- “provide a general framework for sound organisation and industrial relations practice.” And further states that it sets out “terms and conditions of employment relating to Bord Gais” (now ERVIA)
Clause 1.5 of the Agreement states:
- “The Agreement may be altered at any time by agreement between management and Trade Unions. Proposed changes should be specified in writing to which the other party will respond within thirty days. Mutually agreed amendments of the terms of this agreement shall be recorded in addenda and signed on behalf of all parties.”
In this case the Court finds that the Company introduced changes to the Sick Pay Scheme in March 2015. It contends that those changes were not material and could be introduced through the adoption of a new sick pay policy that it says was not objected to by the Unions. The Union side submits that the change was material and that in any event the Agreement can only be changed in accordance with the provisions of Clause 1.5 above.
In this case the Court finds that the changes introduced to the Sick Pay Scheme are material in nature, constitute an alteration of the terms and conditions of employment of those members of staff that come within the scope of the R2000 Agreement. As such the changes proposed by the Company can only be introduced in accordance with the terms of Clause 1.5 of the Agreement. In this case that procedure was not followed by the Company and accordingly the changes that were introduced are not valid alterations to the R2000 Agreement and cannot stand.
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Management’s proposed changes to the Sick Pay Scheme. That matter falls to the parties to engage on further through the procedures set out in clause 1.5 of the Agreement.
As the Court has often stated no agreement is immutable. Terms and conditions of employment are subject to change and development in line with changing norms in industry and the economy generally. Accordingly, should Management table a proposal to make changes to the Sick Pay Scheme it is incumbent on the Unions to engage with such proposals in good faith and to exhaust the procedures set out in R2000 with a view to reaching an accommodation that is acceptable to both sides. Failing such agreement, it is open to the parties to refer the matter for Recommendation to this Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
2 July 2018.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.