Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94225 Case Number: LCR14443 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KERRY INGREDIENTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning:- (1) The Union's claim for compensation on behalf of 2 workers. (2) Seniority on lay-off and recall.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to the points made by
the parties in their written and oral submissions to the Court.
The Court recommends as follows with regard to the two items in
dispute.
1. Compensation for loss of shift premium:
While the Court notes that the workers involved in this
claim have been on shift-work for a considerable period,
it does appear to it, having regard to the in-house
acceptance and working of the principle of transfer from
shift-work to day work and vice - versa as required to
meet market demands, that there are insufficient grounds
to recommend concession of the Union's claim.
2. Seniority in lay-off/recall
The Court considers that the Company's approach is
reasonable and the Union should therefore accept the
present system. The Court notes the Company's efforts
to meet individual requirements and its undertaking to
operate the lay off/recall in an open manner. The Court
further consider that the Union should be involved in
the proposed examination and monitoring of the system to
ensure it is in accordance with the Labour Agreement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94225 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14443
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
KERRY INGREDIENTS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:-
(1) The Union's claim for compensation on behalf of 2
workers.
(2) Seniority on lay-off and recall.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 28th October,
1993. As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on the 22nd April, 1994. The Court
investigated the dispute in Killarney on the 27th April,
1994.
CLAIM 1: BACKGROUND
3. The two employees concerned worked a two-cycle shift for a
number of years in the cleaning and production areas of the
plant. In 1992, the Company re-assigned the workers to day
work. The Union is claiming compensation in the amount of 2.50
times the workers' annual loss.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers received a shift allowance amounting to 25%
of basic rate. They were in receipt of this allowance
for a long number of years, have suffered a significant
financial loss and are entitled to compensation.
2. It is common practice in industry that workers,
transferred from shift to day work, receive compensation
in respect of loss of shift premium.
3. The Union accepts that workers, on shift for short
periods and then transferred to days, are not entitled
to compensation. However, the case of the two workers
concerned they were rostered on shift-work for a
considerable time and in their case compensation is
justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is part and parcel of the Company's operations that
shift changes occur frequently and workers cannot be
guaranteed to remain on a particular shift. There have
been a number of similar such situations where employees
moved from shift to days without compensation being
paid.
2. The Company/Union agreement stipulates that the Company
must have total flexibility to operate shifts and
changes given the nature of the business. To begin now
the precedent of paying compensation to workers would
make the operation of the plant uncompetitive and
introduce a further cost increasing element into the
operation.
CLAIM 2: BACKGROUND
6. The dispute concerns the operation of Clause 10 of the
Company/Union agreement in relation to "lay-off and recall of
seasonal workers." The Union claims that the Company is not
adhering to the principle of seniority in its operation of
the Agreement plant-wide. Management rejected the claim .
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company's failure to adhere to the seniority
principle is causing many problems for the workers
concerned. In numerous instances in the various
departments, workers feel that they are being unfairly
treated. These problems are avoidable if Management
agreed to the seniority system as provided for in the
Agreement.
2. The workers concerned are interchangeable and fully
flexible in their duties relative to any work or work
areas in compliance with clause 7 of the Agreement
relating to flexibility. The Company cannot use the
need for "flexibility and competitiveness" as an excuse
to ignore the seniority principle.
3. The various changes in the Social Welfare System have
eroded the cushion of benefits which workers enjoyed in
the off-season. Workers need to be kept-on later in the
employment and recalled earlier and this must be done in
accordance with the seniority system.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has four separate operating plants on-site
with a wide range of specialist type jobs. Workers in
each of the plants are recruited and trained in these
plants and gain specialised knowledge and are recalled
in accordance with production demands for the peak
season. Lay-off and recall have always been determined
on the basis of production requirements in each area.
2. The Company has operated Clause 10 in a fair, open and
practical manner within each plant, only a few workers
in the past number of years have raised an issue
regarding their lay-off/recall and these were resolved
on an individual basis. Each year a number of workers
request not to be recalled and similarly a number
request to be laid-off early. The Company endeavours to
facilitate these requests.
3. The Company has taken steps to monitor closely the
recall and lay-off of workers to ensure it is operating
fairly. It must remain efficient and competitive and
cannot move employees throughout peak periods to
accommodate a seniority of service application
plant-wide.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the points made by
the parties in their written and oral submissions to the Court.
The Court recommends as follows with regard to the two items in
dispute.
1. Compensation for loss of shift premium:
While the Court notes that the workers involved in this
claim have been on shift-work for a considerable period,
it does appear to it, having regard to the in-house
acceptance and working of the principle of transfer from
shift-work to day work and vice - versa as required to
meet market demands, that there are insufficient grounds
to recommend concession of the Union's claim.
2. Seniority in lay-off/recall
The Court considers that the Company's approach is
reasonable and the Union should therefore accept the
present system. The Court notes the Company's efforts
to meet individual requirements and its undertaking to
operate the lay off/recall in an open manner. The Court
further consider that the Union should be involved in
the proposed examination and monitoring of the system to
ensure it is in accordance with the Labour Agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th May, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.