LCR23206

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

BACKGROUND:

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 27 May 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 6 January 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court concerns a dispute in relation to the classification of COVID-19 absences as part of the company’s Sickness Benefit Scheme and Lates and Attendance policies.

Union position:

The decision to include COVID-19 as an illness in the Sick Absence Scheme and the Lateness and Attendance policy was a unilateral one taken by the company. The decision adversely impacts the benefits associated with those schemes, which are the product of successful negotiations between the company and the unions, forming an essential part of collective agreements.

The decision has significant potential to reduce levels of sickness cover and substantially reduce or eliminate attendance bonuses, as the re-classification of COVID-19 absences as reckonable will push many members beyond thresholds, resulting in a reduction in benefits. Public health advice continues to be that those who have contracted COVID-19 should remain at home for five days. The Company did not engage with the Union prior to implementing this change and the decision and its consequences are therefore in dispute.

Company Position:

A derogation for absences due to COVID-19 on sick pay and lates and absence was introduced during the global pandemic to maintain employment and support employees who were absent at that time. The pandemic is over and all restrictions and supports associated with it throughout the country has been removed. Although a discretionary measure introduced by the company in 2020, management met with the trade unions in advance of issuing any advisory communication.

The company has a very generous sick pay scheme which at a maximum entitlement, pays eligible employees up to 26 weeks full pay for certified leave in a 12-month period. Under current agreements and policies, employees who have a certified absence due to COVID-19 and are within sick pay category are paid in full for the duration of the absence (up to sick pay category limits). The company has an agreed Lates and Absence policy with its recognised trade unions, which was updated in 2022, with the aim of reducing high levels of absence on site. Current absence rate on site is 10.06%.

COVID-19 should not attract any special treatment for the purposes of the Lates and Absence policy or Sick Benefit Scheme. The company gives no consideration to the nature of an employee's illness for sick pay and absence purposes other than communicable diseases specified in the company’s global Quality Policy, which relate to the nature of the business of food manufacturing. To concede the request and add a disease outside those prescribed by in the corporate Quality Policy would open the company to further claims to widen the derogation.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties.

The Court notes that various arrangements for COVID-19 were introduced in 2020 in good faith in collaboration and cooperation with union representatives at local level.

A derogation from including COVID-19 related absences for the purposes of the company’s Lates and Absence policy and Sick Benefit Scheme was introduced as a temporary adjustment to those policies during that extraordinary time. The Court notes that the derogation was introduced as a discretionary measure and does not form part of collective agreements negotiated between the company and its recognised unions.

The Court notes the current high levels of absence in the company. No information was put forward by the parties to indicate the extent of Covid-19 related absences in the company currently and the Court did not have the benefit of such information to assist it in its deliberations. Furthermore, no data was provided to the Court to suggest that comparable companies in the food manufacturing sector operate derogations for COVID-19 related absence.

Having regard to all of the above and given the wider implications of concession of the claim, Court can see no merit in recommending restoration of a derogation for Covid-19 related absences when calculating entitlements under the company’s Sickness Benefit and Lates and Absence policies.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
FC	______________________
12 January 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.