Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91300 Case Number: LCR13375 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SMITH & NEPHEW (IRELAND) LTD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
An appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST216/91 regarding the loss of the "core jobs" of 4 workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the circumstances of this case, the Court
does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91300 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR13375
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: SMITH & NEPHEW (IRELAND) LTD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST216/91 regarding the loss of the "core jobs" of 4 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of a British parent and employs
150 people, 40 of whom are directly involved in production.
The Company manufactures and distributes a range of skin care
products, toiletries and hospital appliances for the Irish
market.
2. The Company stopped producing toiletries in 1991. The 4
workers employed on the line were re-deployed to the "press
on line". A claim was lodged by the Union on their behalf
for #800 compensation each in respect of the loss of their
"core jobs" i.e. the work which they were normally employed
to do. The Company rejected the claim citing a 1980
productivity agreement on flexibility which provides for
interchangeability between departments.
3. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and an
investigation took place on 23rd May, 1991. The
recommendation as set out below was issued on 31st May, 1991.
"RECOMMENDATION
I do recognise the validity of the Union
Representative's argument in relation to the loss by the
claimants of their "core job." However, I do not see
where there are valid grounds for paying compensation
which may reasonably be viewed by the rest of the
workforce as a payment for "flexibility".
In these circumstances in particular and the future
viability of manufacturing in the plant I recommend that
the claim fails."
4. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour
Court by letter dated 7th June, 1991 under section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 23rd July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The production workers are employed to manufacture a
particular product. Depending on product requirements they
can be redeployed. This flexibility, when required is
provided for in the Union/Company agreement. The workers,
have been moved from their "core jobs". The jobs for which
they were employed to do no longer exit. Their redeployment is
permanent. As a result, the times of their breaks have been
changed and they are now required to be more flexible than
other workers. The changes in their conditions are greater
than allowed for in the Company/Union agreement. Their case
is unique.
2. This claim is not a precedent for other claims for
compensation involving flexibility. The claim is for
disturbance due to the loss of the original "core jobs". It
does not affect the agreement on flexibility.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The success of the Company in maintaining a
manufacturing unit in Ireland is due to the flexible nature of
the operation, which can respond to low volume orders of a
range of different products. It is imperative that this
flexibility remains, particularly in the light of the constant
flood of imports with which the Company must compete. The
workers who were redeployed as a result of the closure of the
toiletries manufacturing unit, were flexible in their previous
positions and consequently no compensation is warranted. The
1980 agreement is in operation in all areas of the
manufacturing process.
2. If the claim is conceded, there is a danger that other workers
who are also flexible would take the view that they should be
compensated for flexibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the circumstances of this case, the Court
does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
31st July, 1991 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman