Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88461 Case Number: LCR12067 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH SUGAR PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 27 workers employed at the Erin Foods Plant, Thurles, concerning:- (a) Compensation for loss of earnings to be paid to 18 workers for loss of shift pay. (b) Compensation for loss of earnings to be paid to 9 workers who were "laid-of".
Recommendation:
5. Claim (a) Compensation for loss of shift pay.
Having regard to the reasons for the change in work pattern,
the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (b) Compensation for a compulsory lay-off involving 9
workers.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the employees'
pension contributions for the period of the lay-off and that
the workers should not have their holiday entitlements reduced
as a result of the lay-offs.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88461 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12067
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH SUGAR PLC
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 27 workers
employed at the Erin Foods Plant, Thurles, concerning:-
(a) Compensation for loss of earnings to be paid to 18
workers for loss of shift pay.
(b) Compensation for loss of earnings to be paid to 9
workers who were "laid-of".
BACKGROUND:
2. As a result of a down-turn in the retail market for soup,
sales loss and higher stocks than normal the Company decided to
lay-off 9 workers at the Erin Foods Plant, Thurles during the
summer months, April to July, 1988. The Union claimed that this
lay-off could seriously affect the workers 1989, holiday
entitlement, (holiday entitlement is based on hours worked in the
previous leave year). The Union requested that the Company pay
the pension contributions of the workers when they were laid-off,
pay for the first 3 days of lay-off, as these were not covered by
social welfare and produce a lump-sum compensation package. The
Union also claimed compensation for loss of shift work for 18
workers who were removed from shift work which they had worked for
between 5 and 11 years. The Company states it is in a very
serious financial position and rejects the claims. The Company
says there is nothing it can do about the loss of the first 3 days
of lay-off or loss of holidays as these are entirely due to the
provisions of the Social Welfare and Holiday Acts. As agreement
could not be reached at local level the dispute was referred, on
30th March, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 20th
April, 1988, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on 27th June, 1988. A Court
hearing took place on 20th September, 1988, in Nenagh.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 18 workers removed from shift work had worked shift
for between 5 to 11 years. The premia paid for shift work was
an integral part of their earnings and they had become
accustomed to both the pattern of hours and the level of
earnings over the period involved. The Court has previously
recommended compensation for loss of shift, (details supplied
to the Court).
2. Seasonal lay-offs is not a feature of employment in the
Company. All the 9 workers involved were long serving
permanent workers whose contracts of employment provides for a
40 hour week. None had been involved in any lay-off in the
past.
3. The lay-offs came as a bombshell and when it was learned
that these workers were to be laid-off for a 4 month period
representations were made to seek the introduction of measures
to minimise the effects of the lay-offs. The measures
included:-
- payment of the 3 day working period for Social
Welfare,
- payment of pension contributions of approximately
£4.50 per week per worker during the lay-off
period,
- guarantee of no loss of annual leave in the
following year as a result of the lay-off.
There is also the question of other deduction schemes in
operation in the Company for fuel, Credit Union etc..... which
accumulated during the lay-off period with consequential
effects on the household budgets.
4. The Union seeks some alleviation from the effects of the
lay-off for the workers involved. In a similar situation
involving Bord na Mona, the precise issues raised by the Union
in this case were addressed in a detailed agreement negotiated
with the union's, (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the nature of the business at Erin Foods temporary
lay-off is a regular feature of the employment pattern and has
occurred many times in the past. Job retention or
compensation when insufficent work is available is not
possible. The Company cannot be expected to guarantee
earnings and must alter work patterns and schedules to meet
market demand so as to survive. Because of the competition in
the market place and the extent of it's losses the Company is
desperately trying to effect cost reductions and cut-backs in
all sectors of it's business including temporary lay-offs and
redundancies.
2. The terms and conditions prevailing in the Company already
minimise fluctuations in earnings through inbuilt compensatory
systems (details supplied to the Court).
3. In recent years the Company has maintained a small number
of workers on shift, specifically to operate the retail soup
packing line. There has been a gradual decrease in the amount
of retail soup sold in recent years and as a result it is no
longer necessary to maintain the retail soup packing line on
shift. Market requirements can be met by the day work
operation of the line. Therefore, the workers associated with
the line have been changed from shift to day work.
4. The seasonality of the business, involving peaks and
valleys, necessitates change from day to shift, job to job and
back. This has always been the way. The majority of hourly
paid workers are affected by changes of work pattern. The
change in work patterns was forced on the Company due to a
lack of demand for the product exacerbated in this instance by
strike action at a critical part of the main selling period.
5. All claims against the Company for compensation for loss
of earnings made in the past have failed, (details supplied to
the Court). Concession of this claim would invite
repercussive claims which the Company cannot afford. Any
extra payments at a time when it is in a serious financial
position with acute market difficulties, particularly on the
Erin side of the business which has diminished to the degree
that only 1 plant out of 9 is still in operation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Claim (a) Compensation for loss of shift pay.
Having regard to the reasons for the change in work pattern,
the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (b) Compensation for a compulsory lay-off involving 9
workers.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the employees'
pension contributions for the period of the lay-off and that
the workers should not have their holiday entitlements reduced
as a result of the lay-offs.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
14th. October, 1988. John M. Horgan
B. O'N. / M. F. Chairman