Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89513 Case Number: LCR12686 Section / Act: S67 Parties: W & C MCDONNELL LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning office re-location.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that the impact of the transfer
of the Dublin office on the Drogheda staff is not such as to
warrant the amount claimed. The Court therefore recommends that
the workers concerned implement the required changes without
further delay and that the Employer's offer be amended to provide
for a sum of #450 to each of the Drogheda staff concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89513 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12686
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: W & C MCDONNELL LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning office re-location.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute involves 15 of the Company's Drogheda based
clerical staff and arises from Management's decision to transfer
its head office from Dublin to Drogheda. The Company agreed to
pay a compensatory figure of #4,500 to clerical staff in Dublin
who transferred to Drogheda. The Union is seeking 60% of this
figure for existing clerical staff in Drogheda for what it terms
the significant contribution they made in the Company's cost
saving exercise. The Union further claims that the Company
reduced clerical numbers in Dublin from 11 to 6 and that the work
of at least three of these clerks is being transferred to the
claimants. The Company has rejected this, claiming that no extra
work is being absorbed by the clerical group in Drogheda. In May
the Company submitted to the Union job descriptions for the 15
claimants together with job descriptions for the 14 actual jobs
with the 15th job to cover training, holidays etc. The system
would involve rotation of a number of staff to achieve this
objective (details supplied to the Court). These proposals were
rejected by the Union. Following the failure of local level
discussions, the dispute was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 7th April, 1989. Conciliation
conferences on the 13th April and 27th June failed to resolve the
issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing on the 1st
August, was adjourned to allow for further local level
negotiations.
3. Further direct discussions were subsequently held and the
Court resumed its investigation of the dispute on the 23rd
November, 1989. There was some confusion among the parties as to
what these discussions had achieved. The Company was of the view
that the only issue now before the Court was the claim for
compensation (it had offered #100 gross but this was rejected).
The Union, however, claimed that the discussions had failed to
resolve anything and that the issues of rotation, job description
and compensation were all still in dispute.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for 60% of the #4,500 is a fair and reasonable
valuation of the part played by the claimants in the overall
cost - saving exercise, especially as the exercise would not
be implemented without their participation.
2. On the 7th September, 1989, the Union wrote to the Company
detailing precisely the work transferring to Drogheda. The
Company's response was to produce 15 new job descriptions
which include elements of Dublin work as follows:
- telephonist/receptionist
- postal department
- salaries and expenses
- imported packed stock records
- preparation and lodgement of moneys to the bank
daily
- stock taking in North Wall.
3. In presenting these descriptions, the Company has
abandoned the training job. It would appear under its current
proposal that the Company now accepts that the spare capacity
to implement the training position does not now exist. In
real terms this indicates that the Company's position has now
changed considerably. At the start of negotiations it held
firmly to the view that the claimants had no involvement
whatsoever in the transfer. It would now seem that Management
has moved to a position where it contends that the equivalent
of two jobs is being transferred.
4. The Company has in the past underestimated the work value
of its proposals and the current correct position is that the
value of three jobs is being transferred.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Court hearing on the 1st August, 1989, was adjourned
to allow both sides re-negotiate. The main issues for
resolution were:
(a) the introduction by the Company of a system of
rotation in most of the jobs to allow for
training, absences etc.
(b) the requirement to define 14 jobs with one
floating job to take into account (a) above,
(c) claim for 60% of #4,500.
Agreement has been reached on the first two points but not on
the third. An offer of #100 gross has been made but was
rejected.
2. The Union is justifying its claim on payments made to
Dublin clerical staff on their transfer to Drogheda. A
disturbance payment of #4,500 was made to cover travel meal
allowances, travelling time etc. The Union has stated that
its claim is for allowing the Company to enable the changes
and for the extra work which it believes will apply as a
result of the move. It was originally claimed that they were
taking on the work of three people. This is now reduced to
one.
3. Following a detailed examination of the jobs in question,
the Company maintains that the reduction of work as a result
of the closure of the tea plant and the planned closure of the
refinery, together with surplus capacity in existing jobs,
more than offsets additional work transferred from Dublin
(details supplied to the Court).
4. The lack of an agreed industrial relations procedure that
allows for change pending agreement has been both costly and
damaging to the business. It has been the policy of the Union
to block the smallest ongoing change with exaggerated claims.
In this instance the Company was prepared to review the jobs
on an ongoing basis and make changes if required. The staff
has a negotiating committee and a Job Evaluation Committee to
examine problems as they arise.
5. Since the move at the end of July, a total stalemate has
existed which necessitated the employment of additional
temporary staff and overtime. It has been the practice of the
Drogheda-based staff to pursue settlements made in other areas
of the business where real productivity has taken place. The
latest leap-frogging claim is based on compensation paid to a
section of the business on a transfer. The Company has
already paid at different times in the past for flexibility,
technology changes, and introduction of new lines (which were
subsequently discontinued).
6. The Company is in the process of discussion with its
general workers on a productivity package which includes new
plant, new technology and a reduction of the work force.
These changes are necessary to give some assurance of a future
production plant in Drogheda. There is a danger that this too
might lead to a further claim by the clerical staff. This
section was the only one in the Company not affected by
redundancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that the impact of the transfer
of the Dublin office on the Drogheda staff is not such as to
warrant the amount claimed. The Court therefore recommends that
the workers concerned implement the required changes without
further delay and that the Employer's offer be amended to provide
for a sum of #450 to each of the Drogheda staff concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
19th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.