Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88328 Case Number: LCR11993 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURY IRELAND PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim, on behalf of two workers, for relocation to the main laboratory as a result of the closure of the B Block laboratory.
Recommendation:
5. The Court agrees with the finding of the agreed arbitrator
that "The duties of the three B Block Laboratory technicians are
being transferred to and within the production lines". The jobs
of the claimants are therefore effectively being made redundant
and in accordance with the Company/Union agreement it would appear
that they should transfer within the production area as the
redundancy package is not open to them at the moment.
The Court considers, however, that the Company should make one
further effort to see if it would be possible, through
reorganisation of tasks, to assimilate one or both of the
claimants in the main laboratory doing work which would be within
their competence. If this is not possible, then in the unique
circumstances of this case and on a once off basis and without
precedent, the Court recommends that the claimants be offered
voluntary redundancy.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88328 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11993
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND PLC
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of two workers, for relocation to the main
laboratory as a result of the closure of the B Block laboratory.
BACKGROUND:
2. In accordance with agreed policy on ongoing change and the
introduction of new technology the Company has decided to
incorporate the jobs carried out by one flavour storeman and three
B Block laboratory technicians into the production process. The
Unions sought the retention of these workers in the main
laboratory. The Company, however, sought to transfer the workers
to the production area. No agreement could be reached at local
level and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. No basis for a settlement could be reached at
conciliation conferences held on 13th November, 1987 and 26th
January, 1988 and it was decided to refer the matter to a third
party for non-binding arbitration. The arbitrator recommended as
follows:-
"The duties of the three technicians in the B Block
Laboratory are mainly fat testing and particle size
counting. This job is expertly carried out and the
technicians have experience of other tests.
The duties in the Main Laboratory are greatly more
extensive and more complex requiring the practice of
chemistry, physics and microbiology, handling many
reagents and the use of at least twenty instruments.
Therefore the differences claimed by the Company are
real and valid.
More important however is that the Main Laboratory and
B Block Laboratory personnel belong to two different
categories of employee with separate agreements,
different conditions and advantages and disadvantages
on each side.
The Flavour Stores technician is very much in a
one-person and personalised job. He is responsible for
an extensive range of flavours and colours and is
expert at mixing and blending. Nevertheless the job is
fading out because the use of additives generally is
decreasing and because Cadbury's are tending to buy in
finished colour and flavour preparations and because
changes in manufacturing techniques no longer require
small weights or volumes.
The answers to the questions raised at the conciliation
conference therefore are:-
(a) The duties of the three B Block Laboratory
technicians are being transferred to and
within the production lines.
(b) The duties in the Flavour Room will soon be
eliminated but the present post-holder should
be assigned to a job, within the production
seniority grouping, where his skills and
experience can continue to be used even for
part of his working day."
This recommendation was accepted by the Company. The Unions were
satisfied with the recommendation on the flavour storeman's job
but rejected the rest of the recommendation. The matter was
subsequently referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court investigation into the dispute was held
on 27th July, 1988, an earlier hearing having being postponed due
to unrelated industrial action.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have been in the laboratory for twenty years
or more. They were employed as laboratory technicians, having
replied to internal advertisements and taken aptitude tests,
and were recognised as such by both the Company and fellow
workers. At a previous Labour Court hearing the Company
stated that these workers were laboratory personnel and not
attached to production (Recommendation LCR9548 refers) Now
they are saying the workers are more akin to production than
the laboratory.
2. The Unions are not opposed to the introduction of new
technology and recognise the need for new investment.
However, the Unions do object to the constant loss of jobs
when such changes come about, especially if production is
increased.
3. The procedure of last in first out which is applied
throughout the Company should be applied to the laboratory in
this case. These workers have only five years to go to
retirement.
3. 4. The workers have qualified as laboratory technicians on
the basis of the tests they have passed and by virtue of the
"Grandfather Clause", commonly known in laboratory technician
circles, meaning they were performing the job before all
technical tests to qualify were introduced. The workers
maintain they can perform and have performed the vast majority
of main laboratory functions and with some training and proper
supervision could carry out the rest of the functions.
5. It is not fair that long serving workers should be taken
out of the laboratory. The Company could hold as many
laboratory technicians within the system as possible with a
longer phasing out period and the extra time and staff could
be used for some form of research and further development.
6. This claim is only concerned with two posts as the
Unions are prepared to accept the arbitrator's findings
regarding the flavour storeman and one of the three laboratory
technicians has left the B Block laboratory.
7. The Company is now advertising another position in the
main laboratory with requirements which exclude the workers
from applying. Yet they would be able to perform many
functions of this job.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The B Block laboratory technicians and the flavour
storeman are part of the production seniority grouping, which
covers all full time production workers, trades helpers and
transport employees. Transfers of staff in and out of these
laboratory jobs have been within the production group; the
workers' pay and conditions are in common with all production
workers and are negotiated by the production unions; any
grading disputes have been appealed to the production grading
panel; and in the past voluntary redundancy/early retirement
packages open to the production group have been availed of by
personnel from the B Block laboratory. The technicians in the
main laboratory, however, are not linked to production but
rather to the clerical group (details supplied to the Court).
4. 2. In the past the production unions have viewed any
involvement by any other union in areas that they organise as
being a breach of their "closed shop" agreement. The Company
also has a "closed shop" agreement with the clerical union
covering all main laboratory jobs.
3. The agreed independent investigation found that the
differences as outlined by the Company between the B
Block/flavour stores jobs and the main laboratory jobs were
real and valid. Furthermore, the adjudicator was satisfied
that these groups belonged to totally different categories
with different conditions, different agreements etc, and as
such any redeployment should be within their own
category/group. He found that the remaining B Block
laboratory duties were being transferred to and within the
production lines.
4. The Labour Court recommendation referred to by the
Unions dealt with a purely bonus issue. No-one in the main
laboratory receives any bonus. Any change of location would
have involved a transfer of duties.
5. The aptitude tests which the workers underwent were
basic numeracy tests and were not given to establish
scientific aptitude.
6. The jobs in the main laboratory and the B Block
laboratory are related by name only. The laboratory
technicians in the main laboratory have National Council for
Educational Awards (NCEA) qualifications and carry out various
different scientific functions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court agrees with the finding of the agreed arbitrator
that "The duties of the three B Block Laboratory technicians are
being transferred to and within the production lines". The jobs
of the claimants are therefore effectively being made redundant
and in accordance with the Company/Union agreement it would appear
that they should transfer within the production area as the
redundancy package is not open to them at the moment.
The Court considers, however, that the Company should make one
further effort to see if it would be possible, through
reorganisation of tasks, to assimilate one or both of the
claimants in the main laboratory doing work which would be within
their competence. If this is not possible, then in the unique
circumstances of this case and on a once off basis and without
precedent, the Court recommends that the claimants be offered
voluntary redundancy.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
12th August, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman