FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ILP PROTECTIVE PACKAGING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Issues arising from transfer of Company operations to Leixlip.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of the ILP Group. It is engaged in the production of protective packaging for the computer industry. It employs 140 workers and is located in Bray.
In recent years the Company has outgrown its facilities in Bray which have been in operation since 1987. As a result of these restrictions the Company moved certain manufacturing sections to a plant in Clonee on a temporary basis pending the acquisition of a new facility in Leixlip. The Company is due to move to Leixlip in mid-January, 1997.
The dispute before the Court concerns the terms of the proposed transfer in respect of approximately 45 workers. Local level discussions took place. As agreement could not be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 23rd September, 1996 following which proposals put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer and recommended for acceptance by both parties were rejected by the workers. On foot of further discussions with the parties the Industrial Relations Officer put forward the following revised proposal on 22nd October, 1996:-
I am putting forward the following revised proposals, on the basis that (a) they represent the best that can be achieved in the current scenario and (b) agreement by both parties to recommend them for acceptance. The proposals are contingent on the operation of a 12 hour shift system and a premium of 10% applying.
1. The Company will fully subsidise the operation of a bus for a period of 6 months on the basis that a minimum threshold of workers will use it.
2. The Company will make a payment of £850 gross to each of the workers concerned to be paid two weeks after the cessation of the 6 month period referred to at 1 above.
3. Notwithstanding the Company position that 11 temporary workers were made permanent on the basis of being transferred to Leixlip and that no disturbance payments would apply in their case, the Company agrees, as a gesture of goodwill, to make a payment of £150 gross to these workers
4. The Company will make available a redundancy package of statutory entitlements plus 1 week of basic pay per year of service.
5. Any bus service being operated after the six month period referred to at 1 above will operate on the following basis:-
- employees will assume responsibility for its
operation
- the Company will facilitate payment to the bus
operator by deducting the appropriate amount
from wages and paying the operator.
6. The Company reserves the right to revert to the existing shift cycle should circumstances warrant such a change.
In the event of these proposals being rejected by either party they will automatically fall and deemed withdrawn.
The proposal was rejected by the workers.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 11th November, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Whilst the majority of the workers wish to retain their employment, the proposed change of location will present enormous difficulties for them. The length of the working day will be increased by four hours and additional costs will reduce their standard of living.
2. The proposed change in the work pattern from 5 days to 3 twelve hour shifts, plus travel time will result in a minimum 16 hour working day for the workers concerned.
3. In the circumstances the Union is seeking that:
Transport facilities be provided on an on-going basis. If such is not the case, then a net lump sum of £1,000 plus an increase of 2% in the rates of pay
should be made,
The current shift premium of 20% be maintained.
All staff transfer on the same terms irrespective of their status.
Five weeks pay per year of service, excluding statutory entitlements, be paid to staff who are not in a position to transfer to Leixlip.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The proposals put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer will adequately compensate the workers for any disturbance which may be experienced due to the relocation. The overall cost to the Company of the proposal is excessive and should the Company be required to increase any of the above proposals, the compensation package in total would need to be reviewed.
The significant investment in a modern plant in Leixlip is taking place in order to facilitate the future expansion and growth of the Company and to secure the future of both ILP and the jobs of all employees.
2. The new plant in Leixlip will allow the Company to offer a more efficient service to its customers due to the strategic positioning of the site in close proximity to all major road networks.
3. The Company has given all employees adequate notice of the relocation and has involved the Union at all times in negotiations regarding compensation to be afforded to employees.
4. The Company reserves the right to revert to the existing shift pattern should circumstances warrant such a change.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court recommends that the proposals set out in the IRO's letter of 22nd October, 1996 be amended by increasing the amount of compensation to £1,000 in Clause 2 and the redundancy package set out in Clause 4 be increased to 3 weeks pay per year of service.
The Court recommends that these revised proposals be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
6th December, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.