Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9652 Case Number: AD9625 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST464/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, upholds the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal
of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9652 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2596
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST464/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1995 there were 3 Plants - Twirl, Snack Wafer
and Time Out - located in A-Block in the Coolock factory.
The Twirl Plant was transferred to C-Block and the Plant's
employees had the option to transfer with the Twirl Plant or
to remain in A-Block as displaced employees. The 2 workers
involved in the dispute were originally employed as Spares in
the Twirl Plant, but claim that, had the Company provided a
promised training programme, they would have been classed as
Block Spares rather than Plant Spares, and would not have
been affected by the Plant's transfer. The Company rejected
the workers' claim, as the status of other Spare employees
did not change as a result of the training programme.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's
investigation on 20th December, 1995. The Rights
Commissioner rejected the workers' claim for Spare status in
A-Block on 15th January, 1996 and recommended as follows:-
"In all the circumstances of this case I have to
recommend that the claim as presented for Block Spare
status fails for the reasons advanced in Findings 2 and
3 above." (Details supplied).
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court on 2nd February, 1996 in accordance with
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 5th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers were advised by the Company that they would
be included in a training programme aimed at achieving
greater flexibility between all Spares in A-Block. They
could then have been classed as Block Spares. The
Company's decision to cancel training for the workers
concerned should not now prevent them from being
considered as Block Spares.
2. In the recent past the workers concerned have acted as
Spares in both the Time Out and Snack Wafer Plants.
They should, therefore, be considered as Block Spares
rather than displaced employees in A-Block.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The training of the Spares from the Time Out and Snack
Wafer Plants has been ongoing for 12 months and is
nearing completion. The 2 workers did not question, at
any stage, why they were not being trained. The status
of the Spare employees did not change as a result of the
training.
2. If the status of the 2 workers was to be changed from
Plant Spares to Block Spares it would have very
significant seniority implications, and would affect the
status and seniority of all the other Spare employees.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, upholds the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal
of the Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th March, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman