Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93520 Case Number: LCR14274 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: W. & C. MCDONNELL SECTION - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
(1) Transfer payment (2) Productivity claim
Recommendation:
The relocation of the claimants from Dublin to Drogheda in 1989
was regarded as a permanent transfer and as such carried
compensation payments for additional costs incurred and the
disruption involved. The relocation has proven to be temporary
and the claimants are now returning to a Dublin location. Having
regard to the time scale involved between the two movements and
the fact that none of the claimants changed residence, the Court
considers that it is appropriate to consider the two movements
together. In so considering them the Court does not find that the
return to Dublin impacts as heavily on the claimants as the
original move to Drogheda. Never the less the Court recommends
that the Company increase the proposed payment to the claimants
returning to Dublin from #2500 to #3000.
PRODUCTIVITY:
Having considered the submissions presented at the hearing, the
Court does not find that grounds have been established to justify
concession of the Union claim for compensation arising from the
redistribution of work among the clerks remaining in Drogheda.
Having regard to the undertaking given by the Company that a
redundancy will not occur as a result, the Court recommends that
the Union accept the company staffing proposal of six clerks. The
outcome of this revised staffing should be monitored over a
suitable period of not less than eighteen months.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93520 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14274
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: W. & C. MCDONNELL SECTION
VAN DEN BERGH FOODS LIMITED
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Transfer payment
(2) Productivity claim
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1989, W. & C. McDonnell Limited transferred its head
office from Dublin to Drogheda. In January, 1993, W. & C. Mc
Donnell Limited and H. B. Ice Cream Limited merged to form
one company - Van den Bergh Foods Limited-whose head office
is in Dublin. W. & C. McDonnell Limited maintains an office
in Drogheda.
2. In January, 1993, 8 workers transferred from Drogheda to
Dublin. Four of the workers were transferring for the first
time and were paid #5,000 compensation by the Company. The 4
remaining workers had transferred from Dublin to Drogheda in
1989, and had received #4,500 compensation. The Company is
willing to pay #2,500 compensation to the 4 workers
transferring back to Dublin. The Union is seeking payment of
#5,000 to each of these workers.
3. The second claim is on behalf of 7 clerical workers and
2 laboratory technicians who work in the Drogheda office.
The Union states that 7 workers are needed to do the work.
The Company maintains that 6 workers are sufficient.
Following a 6 month trial period in 1993 with 7 clerical
workers, neither of the parties changed their views. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission but
no agreement was reached. On 10th September, 1993, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 20th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's compensation of #4,500 to the workers in the
1989 transfer to Drogheda has been more than adequately
returned by those involved.
2. The agreement between both parties in 1989 (details
supplied) states that:
"Employees transferring to Drogheda will be subject to
the terms and conditions of employment as prevail in
Drogheda".
Workers transferring back to Dublin should be treated the
same as those transferring for the first time.
3. The work load of the seven workers (details supplied)
has increased considerably since the merger of the 2
companies. The job descriptions before the merger were
acknowledged by the Company as being full jobs.
4. The 6 month trial period proved that the work could not
be done without either significant overtime or temporary
clerks being employed to cover for sick-leave and holidays.
It is not possible for 6 workers to do the work. The workers
concerned are experienced and are not in need of training as
the Company claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers who transferred back to Dublin are now
working within a short distance of their head office. They
are from Dublin and were not involved in house transfers. It
would not be fair to award the same amount of compensation to
the workers from Dublin as to those who travel daily from
Drogheda.
2. The Union has agreed that only six workers are necessary
if there is a settlement made on the productivity claim.
3. Two of the 7 workers concerned are inexperienced and
require training. With proper training, 6 workers would be
sufficient to do the work involved. All of the workers
involved (including the 2 laboratory technicians) are on a
salary of #16,711 per annum plus a bonus of #457. General
factory workers in the Company have accepted reduced earnings
because of the competitive market. It is unrealistic of the
Union to lodge this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The relocation of the claimants from Dublin to Drogheda in 1989
was regarded as a permanent transfer and as such carried
compensation payments for additional costs incurred and the
disruption involved. The relocation has proven to be temporary
and the claimants are now returning to a Dublin location. Having
regard to the time scale involved between the two movements and
the fact that none of the claimants changed residence, the Court
considers that it is appropriate to consider the two movements
together. In so considering them the Court does not find that the
return to Dublin impacts as heavily on the claimants as the
original move to Drogheda. Never the less the Court recommends
that the Company increase the proposed payment to the claimants
returning to Dublin from #2500 to #3000.
PRODUCTIVITY:
Having considered the submissions presented at the hearing, the
Court does not find that grounds have been established to justify
concession of the Union claim for compensation arising from the
redistribution of work among the clerks remaining in Drogheda.
Having regard to the undertaking given by the Company that a
redundancy will not occur as a result, the Court recommends that
the Union accept the company staffing proposal of six clerks. The
outcome of this revised staffing should be monitored over a
suitable period of not less than eighteen months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd December, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.