FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THERMO KING GALWAY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Company's inclusion of certified illness for disciplinary procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Thermo King (represented by IBEC) and UNITE in relation to the Company including certified illness in its disciplinary procedures. The Union's position is that the Company/Union agreement does not provide that certified illness can be included for disciplinary purposes, and is contrary to custom and practice.
The Company's position is that in managing its absence levels, it has always taken all absences (both certified and uncertified) into account when invoking its disciplinary procedures.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 19th July, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th April, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union agreement does not provide that certified illness can be used for invoking its disciplinary procedures.This issue has never arisen in almost 35 years in the Company.
2. Any disciplinary sanction involving absences were clearly based on the proportion of the absences that was uncertified. It was never previously clarified that the sanctions included all absences, both certified and uncertified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has always included all absence levels when invoking disciplinary procedures. This would have been clear to all workers involved.
2. The Company has always used sensitivity when invoking its disciplinary procedures in circumstances where serious illness and genuine absences occur and will continue to do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute relates to the Union's concerns with the Company's inclusion of certified sick absences when invoking disciplinary procedures against a worker as part of its management of absenteeism.
The Union submitted that the inclusion of certified sick absences in such circumstances was contrary to the custom and practice within the Company and held that if the Company had included certified sick absences in the past when applying disciplinary sanctions then neither workers nor their representatives were ever informed of this.
The Court notes that the Company's level of absenteeism is low.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court accepts that the disciplinary action taken in the past was based on the level of overall absences including both certified and uncertified sick absences while the distinction between the two types was not identified. The Court can see no reason why this practice should not continue and, accordingly, upholds the Company's position.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th April, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.