Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9496 Case Number: LCR14351 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the reorganisation and integration of staff in the Tallaght complex.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and has
examined the effects of the harmonisation/rationalisation on
workers against the immediate and longer term benefits which will
accrue to them. Overall the Court considers that the proposals
and benefits are well-balanced, particularly when placed in the
context of the amendments put forward by the Industrial Relations
Officer in his letter of 13th January, 1994.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company proposals as
amended by the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted by both
parties with the following adjustment:-
That the additional days leave which applies at present to
pre 1986 workers, be retained by them on a "Red-Circle"
basis.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9496 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14351
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the reorganisation and integration of
staff in the Tallaght complex.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Nestle Ireland Limited is a Company engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of a range of grocery and
confectionery product lines in Ireland. In 1988, the Nestle
organisation took over the Rowntree Mackintosh Company
world-wide.
2. In February, 1991, the Company advised its
administrative staff and their unions of its intention to
investigate current systems and methods of working and the
possibility for the integration of functions. On 16th
November, 1993, the company outlined proposals for the
integration of its operations in the new office complex in
Tallaght. This involved the integration of staff in
confectionery (Rowntree, Inchicore) and those in grocery and
chambourcy (Nestle, Tallaght) into a single operation. The
Union was not prepared to enter into discussions with the
Company until an outstanding claim for the payment of
compensation provided for under a rationalisation agreement
in 1991 was settled.
3. A number of local meetings were held to discuss this and
other issues associated with the company's proposals. The
issues were as follows:-
(a) Redeployment / Reorganisation issues.
(b) Loss of service day (pre 1986 staff).
(c) Change in hours of work.
(d) Proposed incremental scale.
(e) Claim under 1991 rationalisation.
Agreement could not be reached and the matter was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences
were held on 12th January, 1994 and 7th February, 1994. The
Industrial Relations Officer in his letter dated 13th
January, 1994 put forward amendments to the company's
proposals in an effort to resolve the dispute. Agreement
could not be reached and the issues were referred by the
Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 7th
February, 1994. The Court investigated the matter on 22nd
February, 1994.
REDEPLOYMENT / REORGANISATION ISSUES
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company propose the elimination of Mr. Maher's
position of Timekeeper / Security Supervisor and to redeploy
him to the position of Courier Service / Garage Attendant.
Mr. Maher should receive the same incremental payments as the
other supervisors on a "red-circling" arrangement.
2. The Company proposal is to eliminate the position of
Welfare Assistant Ms. Corcoran and redeploy her to provide
typing services and deputise when necessary. Ms. Corcoran
works a 39 hour week in her current position but under her
new role she would only work a 35 hour week. Whilst she is
being "red-circled" at her current hourly rate it is on the
basis of 35 hours and she would be at the loss of 4 hours per
week.
3. The Company propose that two workers cover the position
of receptionist / telephonist from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m..
This proposal would eliminate overtime of 30 minutes every
morning and evening which is currently worked to cover from
8.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m..
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Mr. Maher's job was made redundant. The Company allowed
him transfer into a job vacancy which is normally lower paid
than his former position but protected his existing rate of
pay.
2. The clerical staff work a 35 hour week while factory
staff work a 39 hour week. Ms. Corcoran in her new position
of clerk / typist will work a 35 hour week.
3. There is no longer a requirement for the telephonist /
receptionist to cover from 8.30 a.m.. The salary for the job
will be substantially improved.
LOSS OF SERVICE DAY (PRE 1986 STAFF)
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company contended that this was being compensated
for through other benefits but there is nothing specific for
those affected, over and above their colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The benefits of the proposals as a whole will compensate
for this loss.
CHANGE IN HOURS OF WORK
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The proposal is that staff who currently work from 9.00
a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with 30 minutes for lunch would work from
9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. with one hour for lunch. The
extension of the day impacts upon staff with regard to
transport home and domestic circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The needs of the company are served best by working to
5.00 p.m..
PROPOSED INCREMENTAL SCALE
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company proposal is that Nestle staff be assimilated
onto the Rowntree incremental salary scale at the nearest
point of the respective grade. The proposed incremental
scale is based on three grades with twelve points on each.
The majority of staff would have four to six more years to
serve before they reached the top of the scale despite having
over twelve years service to date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The staff involved would be assimilated onto the
Rowntree salary scale and be moved up one incremental point
and would mark time until the scale caught up with them.
CLAIM UNDER 1991 RATIONALISATION
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The understanding at the time of this rationalisation
agreement was that the company would outline specific
requirements in return for payment of the #800 nett. The
workers co-operated with many changes since 1991 and payment
is merited on this alone.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. This payment of #800 is subsumed into the overall
rationalisation package. There is no change in the work for
the people involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and has
examined the effects of the harmonisation/rationalisation on
workers against the immediate and longer term benefits which will
accrue to them. Overall the Court considers that the proposals
and benefits are well-balanced, particularly when placed in the
context of the amendments put forward by the Industrial Relations
Officer in his letter of 13th January, 1994.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company proposals as
amended by the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted by both
parties with the following adjustment:-
That the additional days leave which applies at present to
pre 1986 workers, be retained by them on a "Red-Circle"
basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th March, 1994. Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./A.L. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.