Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92657 Case Number: LCR13874 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CADBURY (IRELAND) P.L.C. - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the method of lay-off of temporary employees.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties and given the
present circumstances of the Company and the need to retain
competitiveness, the Court is of the view that the existing
arrangement for lay-offs should be retained.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92657 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13874
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CADBURY (IRELAND) P.L.C.
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the method of lay-off of temporary
employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs two distinct categories of employees for
normal Monday to Friday production - 39 hour full-time and evening
part-time. The working pattern for the full-time group covers all
shifts, days and nights. The working pattern of the evening
part-time is 4.20 p.m. to 10.10 p.m. Monday to Thursday and 3.20
p.m. to 9.20 p.m. Friday. This particular group has been part of
the Company's working arrangements for a long number of years.
3. Currently 25% of both groups of workers are temporary workers.
Separate contracts of employment and seniority lists are in place
for both groups. Towards the end of 1991, when a new plant came
on line, agreement was reached whereby evening part-time staff
could apply for vacant full-time positions and visa versa.
4. Recently the Company announced that because of a downturn in
business it intended to lay-off a number of temporary workers.
The Unions sought the introduction of one seniority list in
respect of all temporary workers irrespective of what group they
belonged to and that lay-offs be implemented on last-in first-out
basis. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that to
implement such a system would have a considerable disruptive
effect on production.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
20th October, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 21st
October, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute on 23rd October,
1992 to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Court hearing took place on 6th November, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Temporary workers are made permanent after they have
completed two years continuous service. Because of the
working patterns in the Company temporary workers employed on
the evening part-time shift attain permanency quicker than
their counterparts on the other shift as there are less
instances of lay-off on the evening part-time shift.
2. As a result of the agreement whereby evening part-time
workers can apply for vacancies on the full-time shift some
workers who achieve permanency would displace workers with
longer service in a lay-off situation. The Unions consider
that in the circumstances, the fairest method which should be
applied in a lay-off situation in respect of temporary workers
is last-in, first-out, irrespective of the seniority lists.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Lay-offs and recalls have always been part of the business
to cater for peaks and valleys in demand for product. The way
in which lay-offs take place is well established and forms
part of Company/Union agreements.
2. Though the current seniority agreements operate separately
within each group they have a very disruptive effect on the
business in terms of the movement of workers at times of
lay-off and recall (details supplied to the Court).
3. If the Unions' claim was conceded it would exacerbate the
disruptive effect on business and incur costs which would
adversely effect the Company's competitiveness (details
supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties and given the
present circumstances of the Company and the need to retain
competitiveness, the Court is of the view that the existing
arrangement for lay-offs should be retained.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
27th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.