Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87650
Case Number: LCR11580
Section / Act: S67
Parties: CHESTERTON INDUSTRIES - and - AEU
|
Subject:
Claim on behalf of 70 workers for improvements in a sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, in the light of the submissions made recommends
that the Employer's offer be accepted pending agreement between
the Employer and the Union on a method of eliminating any
unwarranted absenteeism.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87650 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11580
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CHESTERTON INDUSTRIES B.V.
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 70 workers for improvements in a sick pay
scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of mechanical seals
and liquid maintenance products. It employs a total of 80
workers. Since the Company began operation in Ireland in 1979 it
has operated a sick pay scheme. The scheme provides inter alia
for payment of up to 4 full weeks net pay, depending on service,
to workers once they have completed a satisfactory probationary
period of 6 months. In the case of craft and non-craft workers
there is a waiting period of 1 day before receipt of entitlement.
During the course of a review of an in house agreement the Union
sought an improvement in the sick pay scheme to payment of 10
weeks nett pay on completion of the probationary period in the
case of all the workers and in addition the waiting period to be
abolished for craft and non craft workers. The Company rejected
the claim and put forward proposals (details supplied to the
Court) which would extend the payment of sick pay from 4 weeks to
6 weeks of nett pay. The Company did not propose to change the
waiting day requirement contained in the scheme. These proposals
were rejected by the Union. The sick pay clause is the only one
in which agreement could not be reached. The matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 20th July,
1987. A conciliation conference was held on the 21st August,
1987. As no progress was possible both parties agreed to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 8th October, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Sick pay schemes in industry generally are not service,
related, do not have waiting day requirements and are of a
longer duration (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Union does not accept the Company's argument that an
improvement in the sick pay scheme would lead to greater
absenteeism. The F.U.E. did a survey on absenteeism and
found there is no correlation between the level of
absenteeism and the duration, nature or amount of benefit
paid by a sick pay scheme.
3. 3. The point against waiting days is that workers who might
be ill for only a short period maybe encouraged to stay out
of work a little longer in order to qualify for benefit.
4. The claim before the Court is fair and reasonable,
consistent with good employment and will introduce a degree
of equity in the workplace between blue and white collar
workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim for 10 weeks basic nett pay is based
solely on the premise that the present Government may
legislate into being certain ideas they profess to have in
relation to the concept of payment of sickness benefit.
2. The Company's scheme is service related and as such is no
way unusual in relation to sick pay schemes in general. The
duration of benefit is well in keeping with schemes of its
type. The Company's offer significantly improves the service
related benefit enjoyed under the scheme. The Company are
prepared to make the appropriate payments in advance of
receipt of social welfare cheques.
3. It is standard feature in most sick pay schemes that
manual workers accept a waiting period (i.e. 3 days).
Therefore the workers position is far more advantageous than
that which normally applies to manual workers.
4. When the Company reduced the waiting period to 1 day
there was an increase in absenteeism (details to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, in the light of the submissions made recommends
that the Employer's offer be accepted pending agreement between
the Employer and the Union on a method of eliminating any
unwarranted absenteeism.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
11th December, 1987.
M.D./J.C.