FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION (CWU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment and increases due under the Company's Medical and Drugs Refund Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. Staff in grades represented by the CWU (with the exception of managerial and supervisory grades) are eligible to be members of the Company's Medical and Drugs Refund Schemes.
Since becoming a semi-state Company in 1984, the An Post Medical and Drug Refund Schemes have mirrored increases by the Departments of Finance and Health. All staff recruited in the grades comprehended by the Schemes have availed of the Schemes as a condition of employment.
The Union is seeking to have increases applied to the Drug Refund Scheme and retrospection due from 1st August 2002. Currently staff are being paid at 2005 rates i.e. €85 per month.
Management are seeking to abolish the Drugs Refund and Medical Schemes for new entrants and to give existing staff the option of voluntarily leaving the Schemes or to continue to benefit from the Schemes.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th July 2009, in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th September, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Drugs Refund Scheme is a condition of service transferred with former Civil Service Staff when An Post was established as a Semi-State Company in 1984.
2. There is a long standing custom and practice since 1984 that An Post applies the threshold as set by the Minister for Finance.
3. The Unionmaintains that the Company has withheld rightful payments due to staff on spurious grounds.
4. The Union has indicated that it is prepared to engage in meaningful discussions around proposals to reform the existing Scheme but is precludedfrom doing so because of the Company' actions.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not believe that the existing Medical and Drugs Refund Schemes should continue and this has been its stated position since it first proposed the cessation of the schemes in 2002.
2. The Company maintains that the Union has not engaged in meaningful discussions on the Schemes. The Company stated that it had proposed a number of suggestions as a basis for settlement, without prejudice, over the years, all of which have been rejected.
3. The Company stated that it had given a commitment to maintain the Schemes for existing employees during negotiations at local level. However, because of the radically altered economic circumstances and the consequential financial impact on its business the Company cannot continue to fund these Schemes and wish to terminate them in order to save costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for payment of increases and retrospection under the Company’s Drug Refund Scheme. The Union sought to have increases applied to the scheme from 1st August 2002. Due to its economic difficulties, the Company rejected the claim and at the hearing put forward a proposal to close both the Drug Refund Scheme and the Company’s Medical Refund Scheme.
The Court notes that an agreement reached between the parties on 31st October 2007 agreed to reform the existing Drug Refund and Medical Schemes. However, all proposals put forward have been rejected by the Union.
The Court is of the view that the October 2007 agreement still applies and therefore it recommends that both sides should enter into meaningful discussions on reforming both Schemes with a view to reaching a resolution of both matters for the future.
The Court recommends that these discussions should be completed as soon as possible but in any event by no later than 31st January 2010. In the event that there are outstanding issues at that stage they may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th September, 2009______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.