FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHOWERINGS IRELAND LIMITED (CHAPELIZOD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Issues arising from rationalisation of transport section.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is based in Clonmel and Dublin, is involved in the processing, importation and distribution of a large range of alcoholic and soft drinks.
In April, 1996 discussions took place regarding the Company's proposed rationalisation of its transport section at Chapelizod. Agreement was reached locally in relation to a voluntary redundancy package/owner driver contract for 3 drivers.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Company's proposals regarding the re-deployment of 3 helpers to the warehouse on a full-time basis. Currently the helpers spend one-third of their time operating in the warehouse.
The Company's proposals were unacceptable to the Union and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 28th November, 1996, following which the Industrial Relations Officer put forward proposals on the basis of agreement by both parties to recommend them for acceptance (details supplied to the Court).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking that the increase of 3% under the terms of the Programme of Economic and Social Progress be backdated to April, 1996;
and
that a redundancy package of 5 weeks pay per year of service be paid in the event of the Company terminating the employment of the temporary worker.
2. The workers concerned will suffer a substantial loss of earnings. In the circumstances the Company's offer of £1,500 compensation for the loss of earnings and changes in work practices is inadequate.
3. The proposal to extend the offer of voluntary redundancy to a second helper in return for a reduction in the indoor staff from 4 to 3 is impractical and therefore not a genuine proposal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management responded in a positive manner to the Union's agenda which was addressed at the conciliation conference in November, 1996 as follows:-
(a) The application of the 3% PESP to the workers concerned;
and
(b) The application in future of the forklift drivers rate.
2. The Company's offer of £1,500 per employee will more than compensate for any alleged loss of earnings. Any loss will be minimal as opportunities to work overtime will continue to exist.
3. The Company is prepared to address any loss of earnings that may emerge after one year.
4. The Company and the Union jointly accepted the proposals put forward by the IRO.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties and recommends as follows:-
1. Compensation - That the offer of the Company be accepted.
2. PESP - That the period for which backdating applied to other members of the group be applied in this case.
3. Redundancy Option - The Court notes that the position of the temporary employee is to be reviewed in March. It is the view of the Court that the option to accept redundancy should be available to the indoor worker concerned within a 6 month period and that in the event that the employee wishes to exercise this option the parties should discuss the manning requirements. The discussions to include the future of the temporary employee.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
3rd March, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.