Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91676 Case Number: LCR13535 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the payment of a lump sum to ten temporary workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the settlement proposals dated 30th
September should be extended to provide the same terms to the two
canteen staff and that the proposals so amended should be accepted
as full and final settlement of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91676 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13535
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the payment of a lump sum to ten
temporary workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1991 the Company and Union concluded an agreement on
a rationalisation programme covering manning levels, output, hours
of work etc. In return permanent workers received a productivity
payment of £800 (net) per worker. Subsequently the Union
submitted a claim for the same payment on behalf of 8 temporary
workers. Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
was held on the 17th September, 1991. A set of proposals emerged
from the conciliation conference (Appendix A) which were
recommended for acceptance by both parties but following a ballot
of the Union membership the proposals were rejected. The issue
was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 18th November, 1991. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 16th January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The Union's claim is on behalf of ten workers, this
includes two long serving workers who are employed in the
canteen. The payment of £800 was made to permanent workers as
part of an agreement on improved productivity. The workers
concerned are also contributing to this productivity. They
have been in the Company's employment since 1989 and should
receive the payment. Management claims that as new work
practices have been implemented temporary workers are only
required for the Autumnal beetroot season. Yet since the
redundancies and introduction of changes in work practices
following the rationalisation programme the workers concerned
continue to be employed on a regular basis. They continue to
operate the new work practices and staffing levels without
receiving the £800 or a pro rata payment based on service.
The Company is discriminating against the workers concerned by
not treating them in the same way as the permanent workforce.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agreement reached in April, 1991 covered permanent
employees only and was in respect of ongoing change.
Temporary employees were not included in the original
discussions. In return for implementing the rationalisation
proposals the Company proposed a much improved pension scheme,
compensation for loss of earnings, reward of service with a
weekly payment, productivity payment of £800 (net), and a
voluntary redundancy/early retirement package. The payment
was not made to temporary workers who come and go and are
re-employed on a temporary contract of employment. They are
not entitled to the £800 payment. They have only been in the
Company's employment since 1989. Many of the permanent
workers have been with the Company for years. Management must
decide where the payment for implementation of the
rationalisation programme ends. The cost of the package to
the Company is in the region of £4 million.
2. The Company has always agreed to adhere to procedures.
Following the conciliation conference of the 13th September,
1991, the Company agreed to accept the proposals of the
Industrial Relations Officer dated 30th September, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the settlement proposals dated 30th
September should be extended to provide the same terms to the two
canteen staff and that the proposals so amended should be accepted
as full and final settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
24th January, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
APPENDIX A
CC91/1116
30th September, 1991.
Mr. Brian O'Neill
Branch Secretary
S.I.P.T.U.
Dublin Food Branch
Liberty Hall
Dublin 1.
Re: SIPTU/NESTLE - payment to eight temporary workers
Dear Mr. O'Neill
Further to the conciliation conference which took place on 13th
September, 1991, I write to confirm the following settlement
proposals:-
(a) The 8 temporary employees concerned, who at the time of
the rationalisation agreement in April/May, 1991 had been
in regular employment with the Company since September,
1990 or earlier, and whose employment is likely to
continue until later this year, will each receive a
payment of £100 tax paid.
(b) This will be in full and final settlement of all claims
on behalf of temporary employees in respect of the
rationalisation agreement, and no further such claims
will be made.
The above proposal is made on the basis that it is to be regarded
as withdrawn and without any status in the event of rejection by
either side.
Yours sincerely,
________________________________
Brian McGinn
Industrial Relations Officer.