Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93244 Case Number: LCR14048 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 departments.
Recommendation:
3. The Court, having ascertained from the parties the details of
the issues still outstanding, recommends as follows:
(1) Compensation on re-deployment
The Court recommends that this payment should be made at the
rate of twice the annual loss of basic rate.
(2) Boilerhouse
The Company's proposal to incorporate the boilerhouse
operation, care and maintenance in the work of the Maintenance
Department is not unreasonable in the context of the overall
objectives as stated by the Company. It is the view of the
Court that the circumstances relating to the retention of the
Fork-lift driver in his particular job are not comparable. On
the issue of the alleged discrimination which has been raised
in the context of this proposed change, the Court repeats the
suggestion made in LCR 13989 that this matter be the subject
of a specific investigation by a Rights Commissioner.
(3) Effluent Plant
In the first instance, on the question of the rate for this
job, the Court is of the opinion that the rate should only be
decided following the specialised training, at which stage, if
an adjustment on the rate being paid is warranted, it should
be retrospective to the date the position is filled. The
Court does not recommend that shift payments be continued
where shift conditions do not apply.
However in the event that the senior worker in the maintenance
department applies for, and accepts the Company's offer of
re-deployment on those terms, the Court recommends that in
recognition of his long service, the Company should again
afford to him the opportunity to avail of further specialist
training and assessment, to enable him to qualify for
upgrading.
(4) Requirement of Flexibility
Having noted the Company's intentions that where it is
necessary to call on staff to maintain production, calls will
in the first instance be made on spare process operators, then
on junior maintenance personnel if available and only in the
final resort on Laboratory Staff, the Court is of the opinion
that it is of the essence of the proposals that all available
staff should be liable when needed most for such tasks. The
Court therefore does not recommend that Laboratory Staff
should be exempt from this liability.
(5) Process Operators
The Court notes that the parties agree to further local
discussions on the specific question of "oil changes". On the
other outstanding issue it recommends that these operators
take samples from the Bagging Area.
(6) Selection for Redundancy
On the basis of the information provided by the Union that
only two individuals will be involved, the Court recommends
that the Company agree to accommodate the persons mentioned in
this respect.
(7) Terms of Severence
The Court does not recommend any improvement on the Company's
offer in this respect.
(8) In the event that the total package of changes, including the
terms set out above are accepted, the Court recommends that
the Company amend its proposal so as to pay the 3% with effect
from the 1st August, 1992.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93244 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14048
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 departments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute, arising from rationalisation proposals was
investigated on the 4th of March, 1993, following which L.C.R.
13989 issued. The recommendation allowed for a four-week period
to enable the parties to continue negotiations. After further
local discussions, outstanding issues were referred to the Court
for consideration. A re-hearing took place on the 14th of April,
1993. The background to the dispute is as set out in L.C.R.
13989. The issues that remain outstanding are as follows:
1. Compensation on re-deployment of workers.
2. Assimilation of Boiler-house operation into the
Maintenance department.
3. Rate of pay, manning and shift-work in the Effluent
plant.
4. Requirement for flexibility of the workforce.
5. Specific duties of process operators.
6. Selection of workers for redundancy.
7. Terms of severance.
8. Payment of 3% of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Re-deployment/compensation - The Company's offer of 1.50
times the annual loss of basic rate is inadequate. Due to
substantial differences in the affected grades, compensation
should be 2.50 times the annual loss.
2. Boiler-house - The re-deployment plan has resulted in the
victimisation of a worker. In this context,
re-deployment/redundancy is unwarranted (details supplied to
the Court).
3. Effluent Plant - The new position of Effluent Plant
Controller should be filled by one of the proposed redeployed
maintenance workers, at fitters' rate, with shift premia
applicable.
4. Flexibility - When required, the Company should engage
relief workers from the maintenance department, or from the
'relief operators' pool'.
5. Process Operators - Oil-changes should be the domain of
fitters as it is a very specialised operation.
6. Selection for Redundancy - The offer of voluntary
redundancy should be extended to the Laboratory and
Maintenance areas, as only two workers are interested.
7. Terms of Severence - The Company's offer should be
increased from 5 weeks/year of service (inclusive of
statutory) to 5.50 weeks/year of service, plus statutory.
8. P.E.S.P. 3% - The increase should apply from the 1st
April, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Re-deployment/Compensation - The Company is prepared to
raise its offer of compensation to 1.50 times the annual loss.
2. Boilerhouse - It is not the Company's intention that the
re-deployment plan should lead to 'victimisation' of
individuals. If an employee feels that he is being
'victimised', he has the right to refer the matter to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation.
3. Effluent Plant - Any redeployed worker interested in the
position of Effluent Plant Controller should inform
management. The current basic rate of pay would apply to the
position. Following training-in, a claim for an increased
rate of pay may be pursued.
4. Flexibility - During the Production Season, all staff
are liable to be called on, in order to maintain production
levels.
5. Process Operators - Amongst other duties, process
operators will be expected to carry out oil-changes and
sampling from the Bagging Area.
6. Selection for Redundancy - The redundancy package offered
by the Company will be limited to the eight workers being
redeployed.
7. Terms of Severence - The Company will offer the workers a
redundancy package of 5 weeks/year of service, inclusive of
statutory entitlements.
8. P.E.S.P. 3% - The increase should be applied from the 1st
of January, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court, having ascertained from the parties the details of
the issues still outstanding, recommends as follows:
(1) Compensation on re-deployment
The Court recommends that this payment should be made at the
rate of twice the annual loss of basic rate.
(2) Boilerhouse
The Company's proposal to incorporate the boilerhouse
operation, care and maintenance in the work of the Maintenance
Department is not unreasonable in the context of the overall
objectives as stated by the Company. It is the view of the
Court that the circumstances relating to the retention of the
Fork-lift driver in his particular job are not comparable. On
the issue of the alleged discrimination which has been raised
in the context of this proposed change, the Court repeats the
suggestion made in LCR 13989 that this matter be the subject
of a specific investigation by a Rights Commissioner.
(3) Effluent Plant
In the first instance, on the question of the rate for this
job, the Court is of the opinion that the rate should only be
decided following the specialised training, at which stage, if
an adjustment on the rate being paid is warranted, it should
be retrospective to the date the position is filled. The
Court does not recommend that shift payments be continued
where shift conditions do not apply.
However in the event that the senior worker in the maintenance
department applies for, and accepts the Company's offer of
re-deployment on those terms, the Court recommends that in
recognition of his long service, the Company should again
afford to him the opportunity to avail of further specialist
training and assessment, to enable him to qualify for
upgrading.
(4) Requirement of Flexibility
Having noted the Company's intentions that where it is
necessary to call on staff to maintain production, calls will
in the first instance be made on spare process operators, then
on junior maintenance personnel if available and only in the
final resort on Laboratory Staff, the Court is of the opinion
that it is of the essence of the proposals that all available
staff should be liable when needed most for such tasks. The
Court therefore does not recommend that Laboratory Staff
should be exempt from this liability.
(5) Process Operators
The Court notes that the parties agree to further local
discussions on the specific question of "oil changes". On the
other outstanding issue it recommends that these operators
take samples from the Bagging Area.
(6) Selection for Redundancy
On the basis of the information provided by the Union that
only two individuals will be involved, the Court recommends
that the Company agree to accommodate the persons mentioned in
this respect.
(7) Terms of Severence
The Court does not recommend any improvement on the Company's
offer in this respect.
(8) In the event that the total package of changes, including the
terms set out above are accepted, the Court recommends that
the Company amend its proposal so as to pay the 3% with effect
from the 1st August, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
30th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.