Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93147 Case Number: LCR13989 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SHANNONSIDE MILK PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a rationalisation plan in the laboratory and maintenance department.
Recommendation:
10. The Court has given careful consideration to the views of the
parties as elicited at the hearing It is disturbed by the bad
relationships that apparently exist between management and the
workforce which clearly have made it impossible to make progress
on the remaining elements of the rationalisation proposals -
namely the reduction in the numbers of staff in the laboratory and
maintenance area.
The Court takes the view that, having regard to the length of time
in which the exercise has been in progress, further inordinate
delay in arriving at a conclusion on the substantive issues still
outstanding with these staff is not warranted.
On the other hand it appreciates the difficulties posed for the
Union and its members by the Company's decision to lay off certain
of the staff involved particularly in the light of the bad
relationship mentioned above.
Taking these factors into account the Court recommends that in the
first instance payment in lieu of notice should continue for all
workers concerned for a period of four weeks from the date of
issue of this recommendation and within this period negotiations
on all substantive issues relating to the changes required by the
Company be continued, if necessary with the assistance of an
Industrial Relations Officer.
If at the end of the four-week period any such issues remain to be
resolved the Court will arrange to hear submissions and undertakes
to make a prompt recommendation on the points upon which agreement
has not been reached.
The Court further noted the number of individual matters in
dispute which seem to have remained unresolved for some time, the
existence of which have led to the strained relationships and
which colour workers attitudes to the general matters in dispute.
In order to eliminate as far as possible these sources of discord,
the Court recommends that they be listed and referred to the
Rights Commissioner's service for investigation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93147 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13989
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SHANNONSIDE MILK PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a rationalisation
plan in the laboratory and maintenance department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which employs 71 workers is owned by North
Connaught Farmers Co-op, Kiltoghert Co-op, and Midwest Farmers
Co-op. It is based in Ballaghadereen, Co. Roscommon and processes
skim milk powder, casein, whey, etc.
3. Due to cuts in milk quotas the volume of milk available for
processing decreased (details supplied to the Court). As a result
the Company embarked on a rationalisation programme in November,
1989. The programme is ongoing and has involved redundancies and
changes in work practices among the various groups of workers
(details supplied to the Court).
4. In April, 1991 the Company, in an attempt to resolve some of
the difficulties which had arisen as a result of the
rationalisation plan, outlined its position as follows:
1. Flexibility and interchangeability was necessary and
would have to be achieved without any increase in costs.
2. Employees who were surplus to requirements in higher
grades would be offered jobs in lower grades at grade
rate.
3. Employees who did not accept lower grade jobs could opt
for redundancy and would receive payment as per previous
settlements.
4. Reductions in the laboratory and maintenance department
were essential.
5. The position as outlined by the Company was unacceptable to
the Union who sought:
(a) staff reductions to apply to all grades on a proportional
basis;
(b) payment in return for flexibility and interchangeability;
(c) "red circling" for transferees and
(d) voluntary redundancies only.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Following two conciliation conferences and meetings at local level
a general commitment to the principle of change was agreed,
resulting in a number of redundancies.
6. All areas of the Plant, with the exception of the laboratory
and maintenance department, were affected by the change and job
reductions. In August, 1992 the Union sought an increase of 3%
under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.). In return for the implementation of Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. the Company sought changes in the laboratory and
maintenance department. The changes sought included redundancies
and the redeployment of some workers to lower grade jobs.
Compensation for loss of earnings would be made (details supplied
to the Court). The Company detailed the changes sought in a
letter to the Union dated 5th February, 1993.
7. During the course of the negotiations the Company issued
notices of redundancy to a number of workers in the laboratory and
maintenance department. Six workers were laid-off in February,
1993 and paid in lieu of notice. The Union objected and sought
the lifting of the notices and the re-instatement of the workers
in their former jobs. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 16th
February, 1993. At the conciliation conference the Company
offered to withdraw the notices, provided the workers agreed to
redeployment to lower grade work. The workers would be "red
circled" for a period of 3 months to allow discussions take place
on the issue of compensation. As this did not meet the Union's
aspirations the Commission, with the consent of the parties,
referred the dispute to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th March, 1993.
The Court issued its recommendation by letter dated 11th March,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company, in issuing the notices and laying-off the
workers, acted in a unilateral manner and undermined the
ongoing negotiations on the proposed changes.
2. The Union is prepared to enter into meaningful
negotiations with the Company if the workers are reinstated to
their former positions.
3. The Company's action is unnecessary and confrontational
particularly, in view of the fact that it is in a profitable
situation.
4. The Companies action is contrary to good industrial
relations practices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company has been endeavouring to implement a major
rationalisation plan for its entire Plant since 1989. All
other sections have contributed to the plan (details supplied
to the Court).
2. The laboratory and maintenance department have remained
unaffected to-date. The Company considers that any further
delay in implementing proposals will adversely affect its
viability.
3. There is no work available for the workers in their former
positions at the laboratory and maintenance departments.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court has given careful consideration to the views of the
parties as elicited at the hearing It is disturbed by the bad
relationships that apparently exist between management and the
workforce which clearly have made it impossible to make progress
on the remaining elements of the rationalisation proposals -
namely the reduction in the numbers of staff in the laboratory and
maintenance area.
The Court takes the view that, having regard to the length of time
in which the exercise has been in progress, further inordinate
delay in arriving at a conclusion on the substantive issues still
outstanding with these staff is not warranted.
On the other hand it appreciates the difficulties posed for the
Union and its members by the Company's decision to lay off certain
of the staff involved particularly in the light of the bad
relationship mentioned above.
Taking these factors into account the Court recommends that in the
first instance payment in lieu of notice should continue for all
workers concerned for a period of four weeks from the date of
issue of this recommendation and within this period negotiations
on all substantive issues relating to the changes required by the
Company be continued, if necessary with the assistance of an
Industrial Relations Officer.
If at the end of the four-week period any such issues remain to be
resolved the Court will arrange to hear submissions and undertakes
to make a prompt recommendation on the points upon which agreement
has not been reached.
The Court further noted the number of individual matters in
dispute which seem to have remained unresolved for some time, the
existence of which have led to the strained relationships and
which colour workers attitudes to the general matters in dispute.
In order to eliminate as far as possible these sources of discord,
the Court recommends that they be listed and referred to the
Rights Commissioner's service for investigation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
29th March, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.