Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88876 Case Number: LCR12218 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KILDARE CHILLING COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the following: (a) Application of a clause in the Company/Union Agreement relating to the appointment of permanent staff, (b) Payment of one days pay to slaughtering hall workers, and (c) Compensation to workers on short-time working.
Recommendation:
11. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends as follows on the 3 elements of the claim.
(1) Appointment of Permanent Staff
The Court recommends that the terms of Clause 9(c) of the 1984
agreement should be applied. The Court understands the figure
to be 8.
(2) One days pay
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
(3) Compensation to employees on short-time
The Court recommends an ex-gratia payment of #25 to employees
affected.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88876 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12218
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KILDARE CHILLING COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the following:
(a) Application of a clause in the Company/Union Agreement
relating to the appointment of permanent staff,
(b) Payment of one days pay to slaughtering hall workers, and
(c) Compensation to workers on short-time working.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
Claim (a) - Application of a clause in the Company/Union
Agreement relating to the appointment of permanent
staff,
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1984 following an industrial relations dispute an agreement
was reached which allowed for the appointment of temporary staff
to permanent positions when numbers employed fell below an agreed
threshold. The Union is now claiming that this clause be brought
into operation specifically in relation to ten long term casual
employees. The Company's position is that the overall trading
climate in the meat industry has deteriorated sharply especially
during 1988. Its killing rate is well below capacity and it is
not in a position to appoint any additional staff. The clause in
question states as follows:-
"9.C. the Company undertakes to maintain the overall
permanent staff of a minimum of ten less than level existing
after redundancies etc...."
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. According to the Company's figures, the number of
production workers employed in 1984, was 172. The number who
took redundancy under the terms of the agreement was 28. As
the variable figure in respect of casual employees is 10, it
follows that the Company must at all times maintain a
permanent staff of 134.
2. In March, 1988, the Union advised the Company that
permanent staff levels had dropped below the agreed level
without the appointment of the most senior casuals to
permanent status. (The term "casual" refers to the status of
a worker for payment purposes only. Within the terms of
protective legislation they are full-time employees. Casual
workers with over 12 months service receive the same benefits
as permanent workers with the exception of bonus payments).
The Company requested agreement to freeze the 1984 clause as
they were uncertain of the future and did not wish to take on
additional staff. This was unacceptable to the Union as a
number of casuals, denied permanent status, are suffering a
substantial loss by their exclusion from bonus payments.
3. The Union accepted the agreement in 1984, under duress and
have complied with its terms. There has been considerable
criticism from the casual workers resulting from the
discriminatory nature of their employment terms. The Union's
only defence is that casual workers can aspire to permanent
status within the terms of the agreement. It has come as a
surprise that the Company will not adhere to the terms of the
agreement, contending that it has no obligation to maintain a
minimum level of permanent workers. If the Company continues
to renege upon its minimal obligations then it is only a
matter of time before an "official dispute" will occur.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For a period of 1-2 years prior to the 1984 agreement the
Company was very concerned about its high costs, low output
and general lack of efficiency. In July, 1984, the Company
was forced to close as it could not operate viably without
changes in work practices. The agreement led to re-opening.
The agreement included the following package:
(a) Substantial capital investment,
(b) 25 redundancies,
(c) Once-off payments to remaining workers, and
(d) Increased incentive payments.
2. Clause 9 of the agreement must be read in conjunction with
Clause 1 which states:
"Temporary staff may be employed (common to all meat
plants) in any area or department in the factory at the
absolute discretion of management. Remuneration will be
at rate applicable with no aspiration whatsoever to any
bonus payments now or in the future."
It is imperative to understand that Clause 9(c) was included
in 1984 in the context of permanent employees' unwarranted
fears of forced redundancy.
3. Following the agreement the Company was buoyant and staff
numbers were maintained. The kill rate and deboning increased
substantially. Over 150 extra part-time jobs were created on
a seasonal basis. This would not have been possible had it
been done on a permanent worker basis. Unfortunately, due to
circumstances outside the Company's control this position
could not be maintained. Since the end of 1986, the number of
cattle available for slaughter has decreased significantly and
the Company is seriously concerned about future prospects.
Due to radically changed circumstances in the Company and in
the industry generally, it would be ludicrous for the Company
to contemplate making people permanent when it may simply be
making them redundant in the immediate future.
4. Assurances given by the Company to the Union on employment
numbers were based on a prediction or anticipation in relation
to cattle numbers. Since 1986 cattle numbers have continually
declined and this looks like continuing into the future. No
Company can maintain fixed manning levels against this
background. The reduction in permanent employees was achieved
by employees serving RP 9's. Concession of the Union's claim
could lead to a situation where permanent employees claim
redundancy from the Company which it cannot resist, and they
would be immediately replaced as permanent. In an effort to
settle this issue the Company has offered to make 6 employees
permanent in specifically designated areas.
Claim B - Payment of one day's pay to slaughtering hall workers
Background
5. From the end of November, 1987, the Company had been killing 1
or 2 days per week. On 17th February, 1988, at 4.30 p.m. (normal
killing finish time) a number of cattle remained to be killed and
were held over till the following day when a small number of
slaughtering hall staff were requested by the Company to come in
and kill the remaining cattle. The Union maintains that this left
out up to 40 of the existing crew, thus depriving them of a day's
work.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. During the week prior to the incident in question a
similar situation of more cattle than could be killed within
the normal day occurred. The Company requested that the
workers work overtime or come in the following day for half a
day and take a half days annual leave. The Union informed the
Company that if staff were working short time and if their was
more cattle than could be killed in a normal day then the
workers were entitled to attend work on the following day and
get paid for a days attendance.
2. The Company was therefore aware of the Union's position
prior to bringing in a smaller crew. There is no agreement in
existence allowing killing other than by the specified number
of butchers and general operatives. The Union claims that as
the workers were on short time and available for work and as
the slaughtering hall was in process, the workers are entitled
to a days pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. At the end of the normal killing day on 17th February,
1988, the staff refused to kill the remaining cattle. It
would have taken approximately 40 minutes to kill the cattle,
which would mean that the first people on the line would
finish at 5.10 p.m. (they are all paid until 5.15 p.m.) and
the last person would finish by 5.40 p.m.
2. The Company refutes the claim because for over 15 years it
has been the Company's desire that no cattle be left alive at
the end of a day. On 2 previous occasions in 1987 when a
small number of cattle were left over a small number of
workers came in the following day to complete the kill. The
agreed rate was #7.50 per head of cattle divided by the
numbers working.
3. It is extremely important that a meat factory does not
leave cattle alive on a given day as this is a factor that
farmers take account of in deciding to whom they will sell.
In some Companies it is a condition of employment that cattle
are killed on the day they are brought in.
Claim C - Compensation to workers on short-time working
Background
8. Since 1981, the workers have been working continuous
short-time. In early 1988, the local labour exchange advised the
workers that they had used up their entitlements in respect of
social welfare payments and that they would have to break their
claims and re-sign on. This meant that they would lose the first
3 days of social welfare benefit. As the workers were on
short-time they were not paid by either the Company or the
Department of Social Welfare. The Union is claiming compensation
for the loss of either 3 days pay or the equivalent social welfare
benefit. The claim is rejected by the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. An agreement in 1981, provided that the Company would
compensate the workers for any loss in respect of social
welfare benefits if the workers made themselves available for
work in a short-time situation.
2. The workers, by working short-time, are facilitating the
Company and should not be expected to lose any social welfare
benefits by granting this concession. They have already lost
their normal wage. The Company must make up the loss as the
workers are not in any financial position to do so. It is
unreasonable to expect the workers to absorb such a loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the
Company cannot be responsible for compensating employees for
safeguards in the social welfare system.
2. The reason for the workers being on short-time is that
there is not sufficient work to retain them. There is a cost
to the Company in short-time working. It is not normal
practice to compensate workers for short-time.
3. In the past the Union has claimed for the first 3 days and
a settlement was reached on the basis that it was 'not to be
repeated in the future.' (Details provided to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends as follows on the 3 elements of the claim.
(1) Appointment of Permanent Staff
The Court recommends that the terms of Clause 9(c) of the 1984
agreement should be applied. The Court understands the figure
to be 8.
(2) One days pay
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
(3) Compensation to employees on short-time
The Court recommends an ex-gratia payment of #25 to employees
affected.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
18th January, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.