Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95182 Case Number: LCR14767 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD P.L.C. (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning appointments.
Recommendation:
The Court recommends that the parties in this instance should seek
to have the replacements appointed from among the SIPTU No. 2
members. It is however the view of the Court for the future,
given the difficulties which have been experienced by the Company,
the need to operate in the most effective and cost efficient way
and the need to ensure employment is secured for the maximum
number of employees, that subject to consultation, replacements
proposed by the Company should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95182 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14767
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD P.L.C.
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning appointments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to a decision by Management on the
filling of two positions as follows:-
1. Brewing Raw Materials Controller.
2. Stores Controller.
The Company has implemented a number of rationalisation plans
over the past few years to ensure the survival of the
business. Arising out of a May, 1994 Agreement, Management
proposes to make two appointments as a result of the
re-organisation of the areas concerned. The two workers
replaced were members of S.I.P.T.U. No. 2 Branch. The
Company proposes to appoint two workers from another branch
of the Union to fill the vacancies. The Union rejected the
Company's proposal. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held
on 26th January, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 19th March, 1995.
The Court investigated the dispute in Cork on the 29th
March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has already made a very substantial
contribution to the Company's rationalisation plans and
a significant number of S.I.P.T.U. workers were made
redundant. The Company still requires more concessions
from the Union in proposing to appoint two White Collar
workers (salaried staff). This proposal is totally
unacceptable, as the most suitable and qualified workers
are from the No. 2 Branch.
2. The work in the stores and brewing bay sections has
traditionally been the preserve of S.I.P.T.U. No. 2
Branch workers and it is grossly unfair to offer two
posts, which are a promotional outlet, to workers from
outside the No. 2 Branch.
3. The Company's offer of shift work to the brewing day
operator is not acceptable to the Union. He has been
working days for many years and does not want to return
to shift work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company selected the most suitable worker for the
Brewing Raw Materials Controller position. The worker
was selected following interview. The Company accepts
that this appointment impacts on the brewing day
operator's job but it has offered this worker a shift
position.
2. The Company appointed the Stores Controller following
interview, again the most suitable applicant was
selected. As the worker was a member of No. 4 Branch
the No. 2 Branch objected. However, the Company has in
the past, appointed workers from S.I.P.T.U. No. 2
section to S.I.P.T.U. No. 4 section. For example, in
the last year a technical service worker was appointed
to a position of sales representative.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the parties in this instance should seek
to have the replacements appointed from among the SIPTU No. 2
members. It is however the view of the Court for the future,
given the difficulties which have been experienced by the Company,
the need to operate in the most effective and cost efficient way
and the need to ensure employment is secured for the maximum
number of employees, that subject to consultation, replacements
proposed by the Company should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd May, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.