Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93155 Case Number: LCR14006 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SEMPERIT (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rationalisation of Semperit Sales Limited.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
made by the parties. It is of the opinion that the terms in
general emanating from conciliation as set out in the I.R.O.s
letter of 22nd February are fair and reasonable in the light of
the changes which the Company requires.
However, taking account of the particular circumstances under
which the losses of earnings of this group of workers is arising
the Court recommends that the individual amounts as specified in
the letter of 22nd February be increased by a further #1200 and
with the compensatory payments so amended the full terms as set
out in that letter be accepted by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93155 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14006
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SEMPERIT (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rationalisation of Semperit Sales
Limited.
BACKGROUND:
2. Semperit Ireland Limited began tyre production at its Plant in
Ballyfermot, Dublin in 1969. It was then a wholly owned
subsidiary of Semperit, Austria. In 1985 the Semperit tyre
organisation was taken over by the German Company Continental A.G.
3. In 1976, Semperit Sales Limited was established in order to
sell the Company's product on the home market. It was located at
the factory site and was provided with a full range of services by
Semperit Ireland Limited, including the provision of warehousemen
and drivers. The cost of these services was charged to Semperit
Sales Limited and all workers remained direct employees of
Semperit Ireland Limited.
4. In May, 1992 the Company informed the Unions that it had
received instructions from the parent Company to reorganise the
sales and marketing operations for strategic reasons. The
proposed reorganisation involved the re-location of Semperit
Sales. All warehousing and distribution to be carried out on a
contract basis with the elimination of the six warehouse/driver
positions by a combination of redundancy and/or substitution
redundancy and/or redeployment.
5. The Union objected to the job losses and sought the retention
of the workers on their current terms and conditions of employment
on the new site. A number of meetings took place at local level
at which no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission where conciliation conferences
were held and followed by further meetings at local level. The
Company put forward revised proposals in January, 1993 (details
supplied to the Court). These proposals were rejected by the
Union and the dispute was the subject of a further conciliation
conference held on 22nd February, 1993.
6. The parties agreed to recommend the following proposal put
forward by the Industrial Relations Officer (I.R.O.) for
acceptance:-
"The following options are offered to the workers concerned -
1. Voluntary redundancy - at a rate of 3 weeks pay per
year of service.
2. Alternative positions - Driving positions with
Blueflite and Connons (as per
the company document of
26/1/93 i.e. the workers, while
remaining on the Semperit
payroll, will be required to
carry out any type of work
required by these companies and
be bound by their rules and
regulations). These positions,
if taken up, are on a personal
to holder basis.
- Warehouse positions, on the
basis of daywork, 5-day week,
Monday to Friday.
3. Compensation - the Company and the Union recognise the
unique position of the six drivers/warehousemen insofar
as the overtime they do is, to a large extent, compulsory
overtime. While the Company policy is that compensation
for loss of overtime is not appropriate they are
prepared, in the unique circumstances applying, to apply
the agreed compensation formula i.e. 80 times an agreed
weekly loss.
4. Review (Drivers) - in the event of the drivers taking up
the jobs offered with Blueflite and Connons the operation
of the employment will be reviewed after 6 months.
5. Review (All) - in the event of individuals deciding to
accept the offer of alternative employment the company is
prepared to allow a 6 month "settling in" period. At any
time during this 6 month period an individual may decide
to opt for redundancy (as per the terms at 1 above). In
such circumstances, any payment made in respect of loss
of earnings will be deducted from the severance payment.
6. It is anticipated that the new warehouse will become
operational mid-to-end May, 1993. Payment will be made
when work with Semperit Sales Ltd ceases.
7. There should be no further industrial action on matters
related to this agreement without recourse to the agreed
procedures.
8. The above to be in full and final settlement of all
claims arising out of the rationalisation of Semperit
Sales Ltd. The terms are acknowledged to be specific to
the special circumstances applying, and without
precedence for any other areas.
In the event of this proposal being rejected it is withdrawn
in its entirety and is deemed not to have been tabled".
This proposal was rejected by the workers. The Commission, with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court on the 3rd March, 1993 for investigation and recommendation
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 8th March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers believe that they should be allowed to retain
their work at the new location, in the same way as the
clerical and administrative staff are doing. No satisfactory
reason has been given by the Company as to why this cannot be
done.
2. The Company's proposals do not reflect the benefits which
will accrue to it, following the contracting out of the work
from a relatively well paid section of the industry to a lower
paid section.
3. Tyre sales and distribution in Ireland is regarded as
providing more secure employment than other sectors of the
industry, as it is not subject to the same volatility in the
market place. The workers would prefer to remain in their
present jobs because of this. If the workers cannot reamin in
their present job the settlement proposals should take this
fact into consideration.
4. The Company's redundancy proposals do not compare
favourably with other settlements in similar circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. A reorganisation of the manner in which the sales and
marketing Companies conduct their business has been put in
place at Corporate level. The change was brought about in
order to market and distribute all of the Company's products
equally and effectively.
2. The Company has made every effort to minimise the effects
of the reorgaisation on the workers concerned.
3. The proposals put forward by the I.R.O., which have been
accepted by the Company, represent a fair and reasonable means
of resolving the issues in dispute for all.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
made by the parties. It is of the opinion that the terms in
general emanating from conciliation as set out in the I.R.O.s
letter of 22nd February are fair and reasonable in the light of
the changes which the Company requires.
However, taking account of the particular circumstances under
which the losses of earnings of this group of workers is arising
the Court recommends that the individual amounts as specified in
the letter of 22nd February be increased by a further #1200 and
with the compensatory payments so amended the full terms as set
out in that letter be accepted by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
22nd March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.