FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - 230 CRAFT & MAINTENANCE GRADES (REPRESENTED BY UNITE THE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Changes to Sickness Benefit Scheme
RECOMMENDATION: The dispute before the Court relates to Sickness Benefit payments paid to maintenance members.The matter was the subject of two conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in August 2022 and December 2022. The unions assert that the company has failed to apply the terms of the CIE Welfare Scheme regarding sickness benefit to maintenance workers since June 2017. Changes made to the terms of the scheme by the company resulted in financial loss to members who are incapacitated from duty due to illness or injury. The unions seek the reinstatement of arrangements that previously applied and the payment of retrospective payments to all impacted maintenance members. The company submits that the CIE Welfare Scheme applies across all companies and grades within the group, but there is no uniformity in how the scheme is applied. Changes introduced in 2017 were made against a backdrop of serious cost pressures which threatened the company’s solvency. The company submits that the dispute only came to light in 2020 as part of a conciliation conference addressing other issues relating to loss of earnings. It is willing to reinstate the Sickness Benefit payments with effect from January 2023 and pay some level of retrospection but asserts that the cost of conceding the claim for retrospection to 2017 is prohibitive given the current losses forecast for 2023 and beyond. The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions made by the parties. The Court is of the view that agreements should be honoured by all parties. The Court has frequently pointed out that no agreement is immutable for all time and that changes in circumstances may arise which may make it necessary to revise or terminate an agreement to reflect the changing circumstances of the business and the economy. It is for the party seeking change to obtain the agreement of the other party or parties. Where agreement is not obtained established industrial relations machinery should be used to resolve the disagreement. The Court notes that the company is willing to reinstate the welfare scheme with immediate effect and that the remaining issue before the Court relates solely to the question of retrospection. In dealing with cases where the issue of retrospection arises the Court has tended to treat the date of claim as the time when arrears start accruing. In this case, the Court was struck by the lack of clarity between the parties about when the dispute before it first arose and when the claim was lodged. While the union maintain that the matter is ongoing since 2018, the company asserts that there are no records on file to support this, and that it only became aware that there was an issue in 2020. The Court notes the significant economic challenges facing the company during this period. Having regard to all of the circumstance of this case, including the delay in progressing the claim, the Court recommends that retrospective payments should be paid to impacted maintenance workers with effect from 1 September 2020. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Nuria de Cos Lara, Court Secretary. |
