Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95604 Case Number: LCR14970 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CANTRELL & COCHRANE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Rationalisation plan.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made
by the parties, would urge the parties to enter into discussions
immediately to consider the problems facing the Company and to
agree the appropriate way to overcome these difficulties.
While the Court accepts that there is an urgency about the
situation, the Court would recommend that sufficient time be given
to arriving at an agreement. The Court believes these discussions
could be completed within 3 months.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95604 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14970
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CANTRELL & COCHRANE (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
Rationalisation plan.
BACKGROUND:
In March, 1995, Cantrell and Cochrane decided to create a new
Company (C & C (Wholesale) Limited), combining the licensed
trade and beer wholesaling business. C & C (Ireland) Limited,
remained trading solely in the grocery sector, while
providing the new company with a contract manufacturing
service. It operates out of 3 locations, Dublin, Cork and
Belfast.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Company's
rationalisation proposals involving approximately 70 workers
employed at its Dublin location (details supplied to the
Court). The Company claims that the financial state of the
Company is critical and must be addressed as a matter of
urgency.
The Union's position is that it refuses to enter into
discussions on the Company's proposals because of the extreme
hardship the proposed cost reductions would impose on the
workers concerned.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences took place on 22nd and 26th
September, 1995, but agreement could not be reached and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 20th October,
1995, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd November,
1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company is trading in a sector where price
competitiveness is critical to success. Currently its cost
base is considerably out of line with both sister companies.
2. In the six months from March, 1995, the Company's Dublin
operation has recorded substantial losses.
3. The Company must get its costs in line to enable it secure
its future. To achieve this the Company and the Union must
engage in negotiations on cost reductions as a matter of
urgency.
4. Some companies in this sector have gone out of business in
the face of fierce competition and the Company's major
competitors have had to re-organise to meet the challenges
ahead.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union has co-operated fully with Management with six
rationalisation plans during the past eleven years. These
rationalisation plans have resulted in a loss of
approximately 130 jobs.
2. The Union rejects the Company's proposals which rely
significantly on savings to be achieved by draconian cuts in
the pay and conditions of employment of the workers
concerned. The Company's assertion that change and cuts were
envisaged across the entire workforce of the two Companies
has not materialised. The workers concerned are not prepared
to bear the brunt of the Company's plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made
by the parties, would urge the parties to enter into discussions
immediately to consider the problems facing the Company and to
agree the appropriate way to overcome these difficulties.
While the Court accepts that there is an urgency about the
situation, the Court would recommend that sufficient time be given
to arriving at an agreement. The Court believes these discussions
could be completed within 3 months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.