Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90211 Case Number: LCR13062 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ERIN FOODS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings for eight factory operatives.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the information submitted the Court is
satisfied that it would not be justified in recommending
concession of the Union's claim for compensation for loss of
earnings.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90211 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13062
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ERIN FOODS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of earnings for
eight factory operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988 the Company decided to rationalise its transport
section and have its distribution carried out by external
contractors. This resulted in 16 workers being made redundant and
10 workers being redeployed in the factory as factory operatives
on general warehousing and order assembly duties. The workers
concerned retained the rate appropriate to their grade. The Union
claims that eight of the workers concerned, who had been employed
as drivers' helpers, have suffered a loss of earnings following
their redeployment to the factory and should be compensated. The
Company rejects the claim. No agreement was reached at local
level and the matter was referred on 6th June, 1989 to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 18th July, 1989 which was adjourned to see
what actual loss of earnings; if any, would accrue. The
conciliation conference was reconvened in February, 1990 but
agreement was not reached on the figures in relation to earnings.
The Unions claim at that stage was quantified at 2 years' loss at
#50 per week. A further conciliation conference was held on 24th
March, 1990 at which no agreement was reached and the matter was
referred on 23rd April, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court
which took place in Kilkenny on 9th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Company proposed to rationalise the transport
section in order to reduce costs the Union co-operated in the
change-over. It did so in the clear expectation that the
workers concerned would not have to subsidise the exercise by
cuts in their wages, more especially where the decision to
privatise was made on commercial lines resulting in increased
profit margins.
2. The Company had a very successful year in 1989 with a
record level of profits. The improvement in performance was
mainly due to increased production efficiency and savings
arising from the rationalisation of distribution. The
Company's capacity to concede the Union's claim is not in
question. It should be willing to compensate the workers who
have suffered loss so that the Company could making savings.
3. There are demonstrated losses for the workers concerned
despite the inclusion of phase three of the Programme for
National Recovery (figures of earnings supplied to the Court).
The workers should not have to suffer a cut in wages in a
situation where they contributed willingly to an improvement
of 50% in the Company's annual profits.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the nature and seasonality of the Company's
business there has always been a situation where work patterns
are varied as appropriate. Workers may be required to change
from day to shift work, or from job to job, or work overtime
etc. The majority of the hourly paid workers are affected by
such changes of work pattern which is an integral part of the
Company's strategy for running the business.
2. Due to changes in work pattern earnings fluctuations are a
normal occurrence within the Company. For a variety of
reasons some of the workers involved in this claim are now
earning higher incomes while some are not (figures of earnings
supplied to the Court). The Company does not guarantee
continuity of earnings. The workers concerned were part of a
"pool" of general workers who had the good fortune to earn
extra income as drivers' helpers when required by changes in
the work pattern.
3. Because of the extent of competition mainly from
multinational food companies the Company is desperately trying
to survive and it is in no position to meet cost increasing
claims under this or any other guise. If this claim for
compensation is allowed it would invite continuous
repercussive claims throughout the entire Group.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the information submitted the Court is
satisfied that it would not be justified in recommending
concession of the Union's claim for compensation for loss of
earnings.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
26th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.