Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89715 Case Number: LCR12853 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MITCHELSTOWN CREAMERIES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by Union for restriction of importation of cheese.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89715 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12853
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MITCHELSTOWN CREAMERIES
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by Union for restriction of importation of cheese.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Creameries employ approximately ninety people directly in
the manufacture of processed cheese and approximately seventy in
the manufacture of natural cheese. Both processed and natural
cheeses are sold on the home and export markets. In 1985 a
Company/Union agreement was concluded, clauses 3.4. and 3.5. of
which provide for the buying in of products and services as long
as this does not affect earnings, cause lay-offs, redundancies,
etc. The Union on behalf of the workers in the natural cheese
factory has claimed that the level of importation of cheese for
processing by the Creameries has reduced the working requirements
of the natural cheese workers. This is rejected by management
whose position is that neither the employment nor the earnings of
the natural cheese workers have been affected. No agreement could
be reached and on 12th July, 1989 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 24th August, 1989 at which no progress was
made and on 12th October, 1989 the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 22nd February, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During negotiations on the 1985 agreement the Union
requested management to explain what the buying in of products
would mean and management stated that at times it would have
the opportunity to buy an odd container of cheese at a cheap
rate. The Union agreed to the inclusion of this clause on
condition that the workers conditions would not be worsened
and that management would keep the Union informed of such
developments. However, the importation of cheese has been of
great concern to the workers. The working requirement of the
workers has been reduced in the period 1984 to 1988 and the
amount of cheese imported has increased since 1985. Prior to
the Creameries importing cheese the workers concerned
manufactured all of the cheese requirement.
2. Management insists that the cheese purchased and processed
is economically cheaper than the manufactured cheese.
However, the Union position is that the Creameries have the
know how and facilities to make a cheaper cheese that would
benefit all concerned and secure the jobs of the workers. It
is difficult to accept that Mitchelstown, the home of cheese
making, should be importing large volumes of foreign
manufactured cheese and then distributing it throughout the
country under its own brand name. The Creameries should stop
placing the job security of the workers in jeopardy and should
start to manufacture cheese to replace the bought in product.
CREAMERIES ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. With home and foreign based manufacturers supplying the
process cheese market, it has become extremely competitive.
Competitors have complete and unrestricted access to all
suppliers of raw materials for cheese processing. To date it
has been the norm for the Creameries to buy in cheese suitable
for processing when economically viable and it is imperative
that the Creameries are allowed to continue with unrestricted
access to these suppliers.
2. The buying in of cheese for processing has neither
adversely affected the employment or earnings of the natural
cheese workers, nor has it affected the volumes of production
of natural cheese required for the available markets. On the
contrary, the buying in of cheese has helped to maintain
competitiveness in the the processed cheese markets, which in
turn has maintained secure employment for a large number of
workers and increased potential for future expansion. Any
restrictions on the buying in of cheese will not alter in any
way schedules for production of natural cheese, but will only
increase costs resulting in loss of sales, market share and
inevitable loss of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________________
29th March, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.