Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87852 Case Number: LCR11602 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GOODALLS OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;DUBLIN NO. 3 BRANCH |
Claims on behalf of temporary workers regarding: (a) Filling of permanent vacancies by temporary workers. (b) Proposed withdrawal of fixed bonus.
Recommendation:
10. The Court in the light of the terms of the 1985 Agreement
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in regard to a
claim to permanency for casual employees.
On the question of the payment of compensation for the withdrawal
of the fixed bonus the Court recommends that casual employees
affected by the change be paid compensation on a pro rata basis.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87852 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11602
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GOODALLS OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(DUBLIN NO. 3 BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of temporary workers regarding:
(a) Filling of permanent vacancies by temporary workers.
(b) Proposed withdrawal of fixed bonus.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1932 and manufactures a wide
variety of sauces, salad creams and spices. The Company also
imports and distributes products within the country.
3. Local level meetings took place on the matters in dispute, no
agreement could be reached and they were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 27th April, 1987. A
conciliation conference took place on 1st July, 1987 at which no
progress was made and the claims were later referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 2nd December, 1987.
Claim (a) - Filling of permanent vacancies by temporary workers
BACKGROUND:
4. Temporary workers drawn from a pool of casual labour are
employed when required in the Company. In May, 1985 an agreement
on certain working conditions was made between the Union and the
Company and included the conditions of employment of casual
workers (section 2 - see appendix A). There are currently nine
long term casual workers who are paid full bonus rate and have
access to overtime. Late in 1986 two permanent vacancies occurred
and were filled, one by a female casual worker and the other by a
person recruited from outside the Company, the senior casual
worker was passed over. Arising from this the Union sought a
revision of the May, 1985 agreement in relation to the permanent
employment of casual workers. The Company's position was that it
has implemented the May, 1985 agreement in full and has the right
to recruit and select workers as it considers appropriate. The
Company later advertised (internally and externally) three
permanent positions which were filled by outside applicants
(female). The Union then sought agreement as follows:
- any agreement on permanent employment for casuals to be
confined to an agreed list (i.e. nine),
- the next three permanent jobs to be given to the casuals on
the list in order of seniority,
- refusal for selection to permanent employment to be
accompanied by an explanation from management,
- eligibility for permanent employment to be based on normal
criteria, performance, attendance etc. Every 2nd permanent
job to be reserved for casuals.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. No explanation was given by the Company for passing over
the senior casual for permanent employment, who has been with
the Company for nearly 5 years. The Company has always been
satisfied with that worker's attendance and performance at
work.
2. The first permanent vacancies in 1987 (late 1986) were
filled by a casual who was second on the list and went into
the packing area. The other vacancy as a palletiser was
filled by an outside recruit, although the senior casual
worker had carried out this job many times. It would seem
that the senior casual worker has been discriminated against
in two ways. Firstly, by not appointing him to a vacancy in
a female dominated area - packing - most positions in packing
have been filled by female casuals and all previous female
casuals have been permanently appointed. Secondly, he has
not been offered permanent employment in other areas, e.g.
cleaning and warehouse when vacancies have arisen there,
although he has carried out this type of work over the years.
3. The Company has since filled the last three permanent
positions from outside the Company, this was a highly
provocative act in the circumstances. The attitude of the
Company has caused concern as to the implications for the
other long term casuals. The effect of keeping a worker on a
long term casual list and without making them permanent, is
to eliminate statutory entitlements under the various acts.
The Union's proposals for the filling of future permanent
vacancies are fair and reasonable and should be adopted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The conditions under which casual workers are employed
are regulated by sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the May, 1985
agreement (details supplied to the Court). The Company has
implemented this agreement fully and fairly and has the right
to recruit workers from any source, as specified in the
agreement.
2. Within the terms of the agreement, the Company has the
right to choose at its discretion permanent workers from the
casual pool, there is no guarantee in the agreement that a
casual worker will automatically be made permanent, although
they are entitled to apply for permanent positions. The
Company has recruited permanent workers from outside the
casual pool and has also filled permanent vacancies with
workers from the casual pool who have applied and been
successful (details supplied to the Court).
3. The 1985 agreement has been operated fairly and fully by
the Company and it should remain in force. The Company must
have the right to recruit its workers as it sees appropriate.
Claim (b) - Proposed withdrawal of fixed bonus
BACKGROUND:
7. Since 1980 the Company has operated a bonus in the sauce room
in addition to the normal factory wide bonus scheme. The bonus is
paid at the rate of #6.50 per day per worker (both permanent and
casual). In 1985 a review was undertaken arising out of which the
Company decided that this bonus should be withdrawn. An agreement
was reached between the Company and the Union that the bonus would
be bought out at the rate of a 3 year multiplier to apply to all
permanent workers who have been employed in the sauce room over
the previous twelve month period. The Union claimed that this buy
out should be extended to casual workers (three are concerned) on
the basis that they would have worked more frequently and
consistently in the sauce room than many of the permanent workers
receiving the buy out. This claim was rejected by the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The long term casual workers should not be treated less
favourably than the permanent workers. Long term casuals
have received the bonus whenever working in the sauce room
and there is no reason to exclude them from the buy-out. The
long-term casuals should be included as appropriate in the
already agreed buy-out formula of the fixed bonus.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The compensation offered to permanent workers for the
withdrawal of the bonus is for future loss of earnings.
Casual workers have no expectation or guarantee of future
income or work from the Company and therefore cannot be
compensated for future loss.
2. The total cost of the buy-out for the permanent workers
would be just over #9,000. If the Union's claim is conceded
the Company would in addition have to pay three years
compensation up to 1990 to casual workers who may never again
be working for the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court in the light of the terms of the 1985 Agreement
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in regard to a
claim to permanency for casual employees.
On the question of the payment of compensation for the withdrawal
of the fixed bonus the Court recommends that casual employees
affected by the change be paid compensation on a pro rata basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
17th December, 1987 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.
APPENDIX A
EXTRACT FROM MAY, 1985 AGREEMENT
(2) CASUAL EMPLOYEES:
(a) When production demand warrants the presence of Casual
Employees, the Company will draw on the present pool of
Casuals in the first instance, based on Management
assessments of the skills required.
The present pool of Casuals will be taken to be any
Casual Employee with the equivalent of 6 months
accumulated normal working hours attendance.
(b) The Company will now set up and operate, in future, a
formal assessment for selection and recall of Casuals
from the pool, as follows:-
(i) All Casual Employees will be appraised by
Management during the equivalent of 6 months
accumulated normal working hours attendance.
(ii) Where Casual Employees are found to be
satisfactory, following this period, they will
be placed in the pool.
(iii) Casual Employees will then be drawn from the
pool on the basis of time spent in employment
after probation. In the case of Casuals in the
present pool, as described in 2(a) above, they
will be drawn on the basis of attendance during
normal working hours accumulated, following
acceptance and implementation of this agreement.
(iv) Casual Employees may apply for permanent
positions as they arise. No specific
undertaking or guarantee could be given that a
Casual Employee will be appointed to the
Permanent Works Staff at any time. The duration
of any period of attendance is at the discretion
of Management. No service rights will accrue to
Casual Employees arising from their accumulated
attendance. The Contract of Employment for
Temporary Employees (Casual) remains unaltered.
The Company reserves the right to select
permanent employees from the world at large.