Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9054 Case Number: LCR12763 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HARP IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED TRADES TECHNICIANS |
Claim by the Union Group concerning the displacement of labour through natural wastage.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties finds no grounds for concession of the
Unions claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9054 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12763
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HARP IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED TRADES TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union Group concerning the displacement of labour
through natural wastage.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the issuing of Labour Court Recommendation No. 11947
in July, 1988, the Company and Union entered a 'Five Year
Agreement'. One of the clauses of the Agreement, entitled
'Security of Employment', provided for the displacement of six to
nine jobs, through natural wastage, within the lifetime of the
Agreement. To date three production workers have left the Company
through natural wastage. The Union Group is seeking that these be
replaced on the grounds that the reduction in jobs was linked to
investment, which has not yet come on stream. The Union Group
believes that the Company is in breach of the spirit of the
Agreement. The Company rejects the Union Group's claim. As the
parties could not reach agreement on the dispute at local level,
it was referred on 7th June, 1989, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at conciliation
conferences held on 4th September, and 31st October, 1989, and on
15th January, 1990, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 9th February, 1990.
UNION GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1988, the Union Group was informed that the
displacement of labour would be related to investment. It was
never envisaged and would not have been accepted by the Union
Group that itemised pieces of investment, not directly related
to the job displacement, would be permitted under the
Agreement.
3. 2. The Company has argued that investment has already been
made, thus the Company does not have to replace the three
production workers. However, the investment to date does not
affect workloads. The Company has invested in new kegs, the
beer tank station and a new reception centre. This type of
investment does not displace jobs. The Union Group maintains
that the original intent of the Agreement was that jobs would
be displaced where the investment was directly related and
where the workers could clearly see that a job did not require
replacement.
3. The investment relevant to job displacement has not yet
come on stream. Until this happens the jobs will have to be
replaced. The Company is attempting to put a new
interpretation on the Agreement and this in an attempt to
renege on the Agreement. The Union Group requests the Court,
in the circumstances, to recommend that the three production
workers be replaced.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, as per the Agreement, is entitled to a
reduction of six to nine in the workforce. The Company does
not seek to exceed this agreed number nor does it seek to
place an inordinate workload on the remaining employees. In
pursuit of this philosophy, the Company has without obligation
under the Agreement, retained a number of temporary employees.
2. Under the Agreement the numbers reduction was agreed in
'brewerywide' terms not on a 'section by section' basis.
There is no specific sectional relationship between the
implementation of particular investment programmes and the
reduction in numbers, therefore, the Company is entitled to
reduce numbers as the opportunity arises within the lifetime
of the Agreement.
3. The Union Group's claim for the replacement of staff who
have gone through natural means is unacceptable to the Company
as it would totally frustrate the Company's ability to secure
the agreed complement within the lifetime of the Agreement.
4. The arrangements adopted by the Company are consistent
with the spirit of the Agreement. The Company has acted
properly under the terms of the Agreement. Agreed lump sum
payments have been made, the working week has been reduced,
additional leave has been granted, favourable sourcing
decisions have been achieved which have given rise to
increased production volumes and the Company has invested #14m
in the programme to-date.