Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/92/602 Case Number: LCR13833 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ARCHER DANIEL MIDLAND (A.D.M.), RINGASKIDDY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
The replacement of two Amenities jobs by contract.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has taken into account all the points made by the
parties both written and oral. The Court is also aware of the
genuine fears of the workforce that further redundancies may be
sought in the future, and their anxiety to retain employment in
the Company.
The Court recommends:
(1) that the present situation continue until 31/12/92,
(2) that as and from the start of 1993 the Union accept the
Company's proposal to have the Amenities jobs done by
contract.
In the interim, the Company should furnish the Union with details
of the two jobs which they have agreed to establish on the
Operations side from 1/1/93, in lieu of the two jobs in Amenities.
These details should include location, rate, premiums, etc.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92602 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13833
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ARCHER DANIEL MIDLAND (A.D.M.), RINGASKIDDY
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The replacement of two Amenities jobs by contract.
BACKGROUND:
2. A.D.M. is engaged in the production of Citric Acid. In
August, 1991, having incurred losses up to June, 1991, a survival
plan was agreed between the Company and the Union. This resulted
in a reduction in the number of staff, senior (40%) and others
(30%). The outstanding issue following the survival plan
agreement concerns Amenities (general cleaning) positions. In
recent years the number of Amenities operators has been reduced
from seven to two. The Company wishes to contract out the
remaining Amenities work. The Union contends that the remaining
Amenities positions should be retained. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission on the 12th of March, 1992, and
a conciliation conference was held on the 29th of April, 1992, at
which the Company offered to create two new operative positions.
The offer was rejected by the Union. A further conciliation
conference was held on 24th September, 1992 at which agreement was
not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, and the Court
investigated the dispute, in Cork, on the 3rd November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were originally seven Amenities workers employed by
the Company. This number has been reduced to two. The
elimination of the remaining two Amenities positions could
lead to the redundancy of the job holders.
2. The Amenities position is a very responsible one as A.D.M.
produce Citric Acid used in the preparation of various food
products. Cleanliness is vital in food factories. The
Amenities workers have been undertaking this cleaning duty for
years and have the knowledge and know-how to do the work
properly and efficiently.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The retention of the Amenities positions is not in the
best interest of the Company or employees. The Company cannot
afford to pay #60,000 approx. per annum for the Amenities
service. This type of work is not part of the Company's core
business and is eminently suitable for contracting.
2. There is currently only one Amenities operator in the
plant and he has been offered an operating position in the
packaging department at a higher basic rate and higher
premium. The second operator took voluntary redundancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has taken into account all the points made by the
parties both written and oral. The Court is also aware of the
genuine fears of the workforce that further redundancies may be
sought in the future, and their anxiety to retain employment in
the Company.
The Court recommends:
(1) that the present situation continue until 31/12/92,
(2) that as and from the start of 1993 the Union accept the
Company's proposal to have the Amenities jobs done by
contract.
In the interim, the Company should furnish the Union with details
of the two jobs which they have agreed to establish on the
Operations side from 1/1/93, in lieu of the two jobs in Amenities.
These details should include location, rate, premiums, etc.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
16th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.