Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94477 Case Number: LCR14614 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ADM RINGASKIDDY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Filling of vacancies.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties,
accepts that the Company is in breach of its agreement on manning
levels in that it failed to make permanent appointments.
The Court accepts that the Company's failure to do so was based on
factors, outside its control, which did not manifest themselves
until a later date. The Court also accepts that the outcome of
failure to implement the agreement has given rise to some "lack of
trust" on the Union side.
The Court recommends for the future, that all agreements freely
entered into be honoured in full.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94477 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14614
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ADM RINGASKIDDY
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Filling of vacancies.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the production of Citric Acid. In
1991/'92 an agreement was reached between the parties
providing for a number of positions (identified by the
Company) to be filled on a permanent basis in the period
1991/'93.
In April, 1994 the Company sought to enter into negotiations
with the Union on a new agreement to cover the period
1994/'96. The Union refused to enter into negotiations. It
claims that the Company has not implemented the 1991/'92
agreement in relation to agreed positions. The Company has
acknowledged that it has not filled the agreed positions.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 18th September, 1994.
As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred by the
Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 14th
September, 1994 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place in Cork on 5th October, 1994 and a recommendation
issued by letter on 12th October, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company acknowledged that it is in breach of the
1991/'92 agreement but refuses to honour it.
2. The Union respectively requests the Court to endorse the
Union's contention that the Company is in breach of the
1991/'92 agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Ringaskiddy operation has a Gluconates business
which employs 15 to 20 workers. In 1991 the Company
announced its intention to transfer this business to
Decatur, Illinois. In these circumstances it does not
make sense to employ additional staff.
2. Production output has been low for most of this year.
However, the Company has kept all employees at work with
minimum disruption to their normal working arrangements.
3. It has been normal practice in the past not to fill
vacant positions during periods when the workforce is
being adjusted or when production requirements are low.
4. The Company is currently seeking an agreement with the
Union which is aimed at addressing the manning levels
required for the foreseeable future.
5. Given the enormous changes in manning arrangements
brought about by the Survival Plan and by business
pressures due to a downturn in the market, the Company's
approach to the filling of vacancies is fair and
reasonable. It would not be in the best interests of
the Company or employees to recruit staff in the current
business circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties,
accepts that the Company is in breach of its agreement on manning
levels in that it failed to make permanent appointments.
The Court accepts that the Company's failure to do so was based on
factors, outside its control, which did not manifest themselves
until a later date. The Court also accepts that the outcome of
failure to implement the agreement has given rise to some "lack of
trust" on the Union side.
The Court recommends for the future, that all agreements freely
entered into be honoured in full.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.