FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MINCH NORTON MALT LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Hearing arising from LCR15851.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of malt for the drinks industry. It is a subsidiary of Greencore plc and employs 50 people at its location in Athy , Co. Kildare. In April, 1998 the Labour Court issued LCR15851 in which it recommended in relation to the Company's Rationalisation Plan as follows:-
"The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
is satisfied that no meaningful negotiations have taken place
between the parties. The Court is satisfied that the competition
in this business requires that the Company continues to make
ongoing changes. The Court recommends that the parties
immediately commence negotiations on the proposals, these
negotiations to be completed within 4 weeks from date of this
Recommendation. Issues not resolved to be referred to the
Court for recommendation."
Discussions took place between the parties following which the Company put forward a revised set of proposals (details supplied to the Court). The proposals were rejected by the Union and the dispute was referred back to the Court on the 27th of July, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th of September, 1998. The first date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's revised offer was rejected for the following reasons:-
(1) The issue of contractors is still causing concern.
(2) The Union is seeking that the proposed changes be examined
by the Irish Productivity Centre.
(3) A red-circling procedure to be put in place to deal with any loss
of earnings.
(4) Management's refusal to pay 5 weeks' pay per year of service
plus statutory entitlements, terms paid to other workers employed
in the Greencore Group.
(5) Management's rejection of certain proposals put forward by the
Union in relation to the 'Norton' and 'Boby' areas.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has sought throughout the last thirteen months to meet any reasonable demand from the employees. It has used all the procedures available in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion and has not sought to implement changes without agreement, and has put forward revised proposals on a number of occasions having listened to the views of employees and Union officials.
2. The Company is faced with growing demands from its customers in relation to quality, efficiency, service and price. There is growing internal competition within the Malt Division which has, in addition to its Irish and Belgian operations, a UK base which is twice the size of those combined operations and includes a state of the art malting facility which is the most modern in Europe.
3. The Irish malting operations have already lost at least 10,000 tonnes to its UK operations and it is likely that further business will be lost. The Company is trying to replace this loss with markets in South America and South East Asia. These markets are more competitive and price sensitive and if the Company is to be successful its cost base and efficiencies must be improved significantly and immediately.
4. The sourcing of malt by the Company's multinational customers is a global operation. They will not pay prices which, in their view, are simply supporting inefficiencies in any part of the Company's Malting Division.
5. The Company has to address the challenge of the market place, both externally and internally, on the basis of the proposals it has put forward. It cannot delay their implementation if it is to meet its obligations including those to its employees. It has put proposals which take account of the views of employees without compromising its competitive position. Any further delay in implementing the proposals will only erode its competitive position and make even greater change a necessity. The Company respectfully asks the Court to endorse its proposals and strongly recommend their acceptance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is extremely concerned at the credibility gap between the parties in relation to the business requirements of this Company.
The Company has made some improvements in the package since the Court hearing in April, 1998.
The Union has raised a number of concerns in relation to the proposals and sought improvements in the redundancy terms and loss of earnings compensation.
The Court having considered all the issues involved recommends that the employees accept the Company proposals, and that issues of Health and Safety that arise on implementation be dealt with as they arise, with the assistance of an independent third party if necessary.
The Court further recommends that the redundancy proposal of 3.5 weeks per year of service be amended to 4 weeks pay per year of service and the cap of £42,500 on redundancy terms be increased to £45,000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th October, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.