INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
ATLANTIC HOMECARE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Sick pay scheme.
2. The Company operates in the hardware and DIY market and employs approximately 300 people. It is part of Heiton Holdings and operates at eight locations; 5 in Dublin, 2 in Cork and 1 in Galway.
The Union is seeking the introduction of a sick pay scheme on behalf of its 100 members. A discretionary scheme currently operates in the Company.
The Company has proposed a sick pay scheme based on 15 days sick pay per year, with no payment being made for the first 3 days. It claims that a similar type scheme is in operation at 3 of its other locations.
The Union rejected the Company's proposals and is seeking a substantially improved offer.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 22nd April, 1998 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th August, 1998.
3. 1. The Company's proposal for a sick pay scheme would mitigate against long service employees in relation to their conditions of employment.
2. The offer proposed was inadequate when compared to sick pay schemes currently in operation within the industry.
3. In order to attract and retain staff the Company needs a package of benefits including a sick pay scheme which offers greater protection for staff.
4. Employees with long service should be "red circled" so as to retain their current entitlements.
4. 1. The claim by the Union is cost increasing and is therefore precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000.
2. The sick pay scheme on offer has been successfully implemented in three stores within the organisation.
3. There would be knock-on effects if the proposed scheme was altered.
4. The scheme on offer is comparable with other retail outlets within the industry.
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the Sick Pay Scheme proposed by the company be accepted.
The Court notes that the scheme as proposed makes provision for the discretionary extension of the duration of benefit in individual cases. In making this recommendation the Court assumes that this discretion will be exercised on the same basis as heretofore. In consequence no individual should suffer a deterioration in what was available within the previous arrangements.
The parties should review the operation of the scheme after it has been in place for a period of twelve months. This review should also examine any change in absenteeism levels which may occur in this period.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th. September, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.