Parties: Ann Britton v. Amcor Flexibles Ltd
Representatives: IBEC
Full Decision
What Happened?
The Complainant, Ms. Ann Britton, had been working for Amcor Flexibles Sligo since her employment began on the 20th of April 2023.
In January 2024, the Complainant was on certified sick leave for five days but did not receive sick pay as she did not meet the 12-month service requirement under the Respondent’s Company Sick Pay scheme (CSP). She was also told that she was not entitled to the statutory sick pay scheme (SSP) as the Respondent considered their scheme to be more favourable.
What Was the Dispute?
The Complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC against the Respondent in relation to the Sick Leave Act 2022 (the Act). Following the WRC’s decision in favour of the Complainant who was awarded €1,000 in compensation, the Respondent submitted an appeal to the Labour Court.
The Complainant claimed:
That she was entitled to receive five days of statutory sick pay at 70% of her regular earnings in accordance with the Act.
That the Respondents scheme was not more favourable as she wasn’t even eligible for the CSP at the time she was absent from work.
To the contrary, the Respondent argued that:
They were not legally obliged to pay statutory benefits in line with Section 9 of the Act on the grounds that their own company scheme was considered more favourable.
Despite accepting their CSP had a much longer service-requirement of a year, they argued that their scheme was more favourable when accounting for the total period for which sick leave is payable, the amount of sick leave payable and the minimum service requirement.
What Did the Labour Court Decide?
The Labour Court rejected the Respondent’s appeal, upholding the decision of the WRC that the Respondent’s scheme was not more favourable than the SSP, and that the Complainant was entitled to statutory sick pay.
The Respondent’s scheme had a longer service requirement of twelve months, as opposed to the SSPs more favourable period of thirteen weeks.
The statutory scheme would’ve provided greater financial benefits as the Complainant at the time wasn’t entitled to any sick pay under the company scheme.
The CSP failed to meet some of the statutory benefits, following an assessment of the scheme pursuant to Section 9 of the Act.
Key Takeaways
This case emphasises the importance for employers of revising their own company sick pay scheme and assess whether they are more favourable than the SSP in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Act.
1. Ensure Company Scheme is Truly More Favourable
– It is not enough for the company scheme to only offer more days and higher pay after the service requirement.
– The company scheme must at least issue the same benefits as the statutory sick pay scheme.
– Conduct a thorough review of the company scheme and assess whether it is more favourable.
2. Check Eligibility for Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
– If the company scheme does not meet or surpass statutory benefits, an employee is then entitled to statutory sick pay.
3. Keep Record of Documentation and Company Policy
– Clearly specify all criteria regarding sick pay in contracts and company policy.
4. Consider the Risk of Compensation
– As shown in this case, if a company scheme is found to be less favourable, employers may be liable to back pay and additional compensation.
