Labour Court's ruling on sick pay may complicate future bargaining
Publikováno: 27 July 1997
According to the wording of the collective agreement covering the Vargön paper mill, the employer had to pay workers 10% of their wage from the 15th day of absence. That provision was made at a time when the Sick Pay Act stipulated that the employer had to pay statutory sick pay (75% of the worker's wage and other benefits) for the first two weeks of absence, after which the public health insurance scheme assumed responsibility for the statutory entitlement. The collective agreement thus supplemented the law, granting workers a total of 85% of their normal income from the 15th day.
On 2 July 1997 the Labour Court in Sweden ruled that the Vargön paper mill had fulfilled its obligations according to the relevant collective agreement by paying one of its workers only 75% of normal wages for the 15th day of absence because of illness. The judgment may indirectly cause difficulties in the next bargaining round.
According to the wording of the collective agreement covering the Vargön paper mill, the employer had to pay workers 10% of their wage from the 15th day of absence. That provision was made at a time when the Sick Pay Act stipulated that the employer had to pay statutory sick pay (75% of the worker's wage and other benefits) for the first two weeks of absence, after which the public health insurance scheme assumed responsibility for the statutory entitlement. The collective agreement thus supplemented the law, granting workers a total of 85% of their normal income from the 15th day.
The dispute arose when the Sick Pay Act was changed as from 1 January 1997 (SE9702103F), now obliging the employers to pay 75% statutory sick pay for the first 28 days of absence. The Swedish Paper Workers' Union claimed that the worker concerned, who had been absent from 2-16 January, was still entitled to the supplementary 10% sick pay for the 15th day, as the intention of the parties to the collective agreement had been to guarantee employees a higher compensation after two weeks had elapsed. Vargön, supported by the Employers' Federation of Swedish Forest Industries, denied that the agreement comprised any such guarantee.
The Labour Court's ruling in favour of the employer (AD 94/97) will have consequences for white-collar workers all over the private sector. Earlier this year the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) lost a similar case concerning sick pay for blue-collar workers in the private sector (SE9704112N). The trade unions now repeat their request that the Sick Pay Act be returned to its state before 1 January 1997.
However, the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs points out that the payroll tax has been reduced in order to compensate the employers for the extension of the sick pay period, which means that they can afford to pay the extra 10% as before. The Ministry consequently urges them to negotiate new agreements that will re-establish workers' rights.
The employers' organisations reply that the reduction of the payroll tax was too small to compensate the companies. Representatives of the private employers and trade unions both anticipate that the sick pay dispute will complicate the next bargaining round.
Eurofound doporučuje citovat tuto publikaci následujícím způsobem.
Eurofound (1997), Labour Court's ruling on sick pay may complicate future bargaining, article.
