Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91373 Case Number: LCR13384 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ARCHER DANIEL MIDLAND COMPANY (A.D.M.) RINGASKIDDY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's decision to employ an outside security contractor for its plant at Ringaskiddy.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the
present circumstances of A.D.M. and the manner in which it
recently took over Pfizer's interest, the Court is of the view
that the Company's proposals are not unreasonable in the
circumstances and accordingly recommends that the Union agree to
their implementation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91373 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13384
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: ARCHER DANIEL MIDLAND COMPANY (A.D.M.) RINGASKIDDY
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's decision to employ an
outside security contractor for its plant at Ringaskiddy.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1990, A.D.M. bought the Pfizer Corporation's
citric acid business. The workers employed in citric acid
production at the Ringaskiddy site were transferred to A.D.M.
The workers employed in pharmaceutical production remained at
Pfizer. The site is shared by both companies and the security
operation was controlled by Pfizer. A.D.M. now has a separate
entrance to the site and in May, 1991 the Company advised the
Union of its intention to employ an outside contractor to provide
security services from August, 1991. The Union objected to this
decision. The issue was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Relations Commission on the 1st July, 1991. A
conciliation conference was held on the 3rd July, 1991 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission for investigation and
recommendation on the 17th July, 1991. A Court hearing was held
on the 12th August, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned were transferred from the Pfizer
Corporation to A.D.M. carrying all the conditions of
employment enjoyed at Pfizers, i.e., pension service, wages,
holidays, etc.
2. The jobs which will be filled in the security contract
are proper to the workers concerned. This has been the
situation since the Pfizer Chemical Corporation opened.
3. Security posts are much sought after as they are part of
a four shift operation and the jobs carry premiums of time
plus one third and two hours at double time. The Company, in
letting an outside contractor take over security services at
its plant will deny the workers concerned access to posts
which are part of a four shift rota and are at a premium.
4. Since A.D.M. purchased the plant at Ringaskiddy some
redundancies have taken place. One of the biggest problems
which the Union has encountered involved the transfer of some
workers from a four shift rota to two shift rota and day
work. This has resulted in a substantial loss of earnings to
workers.
5. The Company by its action also contradicts a document
given to each worker on transfer, guaranteeing that
conditions of employment would be the same as those enjoyed
when the workers were employed by the Pfizer Corporation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A.D.M.'s corporate policy is to focus on its core
business and not get directly involved in managing ancillary
activities. A.D.M. Ringaskiddy must conform with this
corporate policy which requires the contracting-in of
specialist services such as security, catering, cleaning,
etc.
2. The Company operates in an extremely competitive
commodity market and for the six months to end June, 1991
incurred a substantial loss. A programme to reduce its
operating cost base to ensure the survival of the business is
in hand. The first phase of this involves a 40% reduction in
Management staff. In these circumstances, it is essential
that Management time be devoted exclusively to the needs of
the operation. No time can be allocated to overseeing
services which can be contracted-in to Company requirements
and standards.
3. The Union's objection to the Company decision to
contract-in security is difficult to understand or justify,
since it is common practice for new companies to do so, and
particularly since this Company has been doing so since
December, 1990. It is the Company's right to decide what
type of security arrangements it may wish to provide for its
site.
4. Apart from being a basic Company right, corporate policy
and business circumstances dictate that site security be
contracted-in. This will have no effect whatsoever on
employees as there is no one employed in a security capacity.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the
present circumstances of A.D.M. and the manner in which it
recently took over Pfizer's interest, the Court is of the view
that the Company's proposals are not unreasonable in the
circumstances and accordingly recommends that the Union agree to
their implementation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd August, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman