Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9473 Case Number: LCR14378 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MCARDLE MOORE BREWERY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning conditions of employment of 15 casual workers.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court is of the view
that the proposal put forward by the Company subsequent to the
conciliation conference is a fair way of resolving the dispute.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Company now reinstate
this offer and the Union members for their part accept.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9473 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14378
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MCARDLE MOORE BREWERY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning conditions of employment of 15 casual
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a part of the Guinness Group and it brews
beer in Dundalk which is then shipped to Northern Ireland or
England for canning. The Company decided to invest in a
canning plant in Dundalk which would create up to 50 jobs.
The investment hinged on getting agreement on a number of
issues including recruitment.
2. The issue here relates to 15 seasonal casual employees
who heretofore were guaranteed permanency if they got a
second recall. As part of the agreement on the canning
factory, all permanent vacancies would be filled by interview
which included psychometrics assessment. Only 5 of the 15
casuals were successful and the Union disputes the
results/methodology and alleges that prior indications were
that more of the casual workers would be successful (details
supplied).
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 12th
November, 1993. No progress was possible and it was referred
to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act 1990 on 1st February, 1994. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 1st March 1994 in Dundalk.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The casual workers agreed to submit to the selection
process on the understanding that the majority of the workers
would be successful and that the Company's investment hinged
on their decision. The Union's agreement was also contingent
on the Company's commitment to consider a significant
improvement in the severance terms on offer.
2. At conciliation the Company could not explain why the
particular selection agency was used (details supplied) or
why the majority of the casuals were not successful. The 10
workers under threat are seriously concerned about their job
prospects in view of the high unemployment in the area. The
Union is anxious to secure the maximum number of permanent
jobs.
3. The Company's treatment of the 10 casuals is tantamount
to a termination. The Union is seeking a more equitable
approach to the selection process.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was fully agreed with the Union that the Company
would use the services of an outside agency to choose workers
for full-time employment. The recruitment consultancy firm
used by the Company is a most reputable one and has been used
for similar work by the Company's facility in the U.K.
2. The employment status of the 10 unsuccessful candidates
is not being altered in any way. There were prolonged
negotiations with the Union before the final agreement.
Pre-interview tests were held between the applicants and the
management, and the results bore out the overall results from
the assessment system.
3. The Company is investing significantly in Dundalk and
the canning line will not be like any other such line
operated in Ireland. To operate it effectively, the Company
will require a great deal of flexibility. It was made clear
to the Union that the recruitment/selection procedures were
important and that not all of the casuals would be successful
in gaining permanent employment. The Company has improved
the severance terms on offer (details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court is of the view
that the proposal put forward by the Company subsequent to the
conciliation conference is a fair way of resolving the dispute.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Company now reinstate
this offer and the Union members for their part accept.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
24th March, 1994. ______________________
J.F./A.L. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.