FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : RENLEY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning issues related to relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company designs and manufactures electrical switchgear products for the Irish market. In late 1996 the Company made an operational decision to relocate from Kilcullen to a modern production facility at Newbridge. The Company maintains that the relocation is fundamental to the survival of the Company. In February, 1997 the Union submitted a claim in respect of the following issues; relocation grant, subsidised travel - Kilcullen to Newbridge, protection of earnings agreement, redundancy, bank arrangements for changing cheques. Following local level discussions the Company offered £400 re-location grant, finance to run a bus from Kilcullen to Newbridge for 5 months. On protection of earnings the Company proposed to pay average earnings for 1 month after re-location. The Company made no offer of redundancies. It proposed to introduce a 'Pay path' system for banking purposes. The proposals were rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 3rd June, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 17th June, 1997. A Court hearing was held in Carlow on the 9th September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Relocation:
There are well established precedents for the payment of relocation grants when a company moves from one geographical location to another. The Union's claim for £1,000 per worker is reasonable.
2. Subsidised Travel:
The Company offer is inadequate. The Union require subsidised travel for as long as workers are required to travel from their work base to the new factory.
3. Protection of Earnings:
This should be based on employees' average earnings over 13 weeks being assessed before the move and that average would then be paid as part of a protection of earnings agreement for at least 12 months.
4. Banking:
On this issue the workers were looking for an hour off to change cheques as the distance from the new factory to the bank is far in excess of present travel arrangements. Workers would rather payment by cheque with one hour off to change cheques than converting to Paypath.
5. Redundancy:
The Union is claiming a redundancy package for workers who do not wish to travel. There are many precedents for this type of package throughout the country. Approximately 6 workers indicate that they wish to be made redundant. Negotiations should take place on this issue. The package should be in excess of statutory entitlements. The average settlements are about four weeks pay per year of service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1/2. Relocation and Subsidised Travel
The distance between the old and new premises is 4 miles. Relocation and subsidised travel are more than amply compensated for in the Company offer of £400, transport for 5 months to be paid for by the Company and organised by workers, and the provision of a modern, safe, healthy working environment with far superior working conditions.
3. Protection of Earnings
The guarantee of overtime earnings arguments has no basis. Management has stressed on numerous occasions the urgent need to reduce unit manufacturing costs in order to remain viable and competitive. Overtime will be available to each worker for 1 month following the relocation to be based on the average hours of overtime worked by the employee in the 3 months prior to the relocation.
4. Redundancy
The claim for a redundancy package is unreasonable given the significant level of investment required of shareholders in order to protect existing employment and create new jobs in future. Relocation is not a redundancy situation. The Company will consider hardship cases on an individual basis offering statutory entitlements only.
5. Banking
Payment of wages by Paypath is advocated by banks and used in many companies. It overcomes all problems relating to banking arrangements for cashing cheques. The Company offers 18 months free banking on the introduction of Paypath.
The recent installation of an A.T.M. cash dispensing machine in Kilcullen means that it is no longer necessary for an employee to go to the local bank during banking hours to cash his weekly wages cheque. The 10 minutes travel time should be returned to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written submissions of the parties and subsequent verbal clarifications recommends as follows on the issues:
(1)Relocation
The Company pay each employee a sum of £550 in return for moving from Kilcullen to Newbridge.
(2)Transport
The Company to fund the cost of transport organised by the employees for a period of 9 months.
(3)Loss of Earnings
The management to protect the earnings where appropriate for a period of 2 months. The calculation to be based on the average earnings for 13 weeks prior to the actual move.
(4)Pay Path/backweek
The Company's proposal to be accepted by the Union.
(5)Redundancy
The Company should consider individual hardship cases and where satisfied agree with the union representatives a modest redundancy packet to take account of the limited number involved.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
16th September, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.