FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : C & C (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - MARINE, PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Restructuring of dispensing division.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Company's cost-reduction proposals in the dispensing division. There were initially four workers involved, but one of the workers opted for early retirement in December, 1998. The 3 remaining workers are employed in the west, south and east of the country respectively.
The dispensing division services fast-food outlets with both products concentrate and gas in canister form. These outlets are exclusive to the Company. Dispenser employees deliver canisters into outlets and remove empties. This service is provided in separate vans from regular soft drink deliveries.
Following major losses in the year 1997/1998, due to the loss of the Supermac contract, the Company decided to contract-out the dispenser service. It has offered a number of alternative proposals to the three workers concerned:-
- Redundancy at the existing severance terms i.e., 5 weeks' pay per year
of service plus statutory entitlement as well as pay in lieu of notice. There
is an upper limit of £75,000.
- Opportunity to accept redundancy and take up the contract themselves,
(this option is not available at Cork) or take up a delivery job
with the contractor.
- Opportunity to accept redundancy and take up a 3 year contract as a
merchandiser at existing merchandising rate (i.e., £185 per week).
- In the case of the worker in the east of the country, the Company is able to offer him a permanent job in the warehouse with a 3 year buyout of earnings loss.
The Union is seeking that the three workers be absorbed into the sales force in the merchandising area where they would operate as business developers, at their current salaries. Salaries for the three workers in this present position as dispenser salesmen are £24,424 per annum, plus £2,500 stock and cash bonus opportunities. Salaries for business developers start at £12,800 per annum and rise to £14,350. In addition there are sales incentive of £2,500 per annum.
The Union claims that in November, 1997, the 3 workers were asked by management to pick up extra sales by selling cans and bottles to existing customers and to compile a list of contact names. When one of the workers asked the sales director in May, 1998, about this extra work he was told that "it didn't work out". At the hearing, it became clear that there was some misunderstanding about this issue.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 14th of October, 1998. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of November, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th of January, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's decision to contract out the dispenser service was unilateral. This is an absolute breach of point 6.8 of Partnership 2000 which deals with a partnership approach between the parties in regard to disputes.
2. The Company has upwards of 42 contract people working in the merchandising area. There is ample opportunity for the three workers to be absorbed into this area. There is no justification for redundancies or the imposition of contracts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is involved in an extremely competitive market. It had anticipated an annual loss of £276,000 for year 1997/1998 but the loss of the Supermac contract meant this increased to £461,000. The Union does not dispute these losses.
2. The dispenser division has been loss-making for a number of years. The only way to stop the loss is to contract-out the dispenser service. The Company cannot solve the problem by transferring the existing wage cost to another area in the Company.
3. The work of the business developers is considerably more complex than that of the dispenser salesman, whose primary responsibility is actually delivery. The three workers would not have sufficient skills to work as dispenser salesmen.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given serious consideration to the submissions made by the parties, and acknowledges the Company's need to reduce costs in the dispensing area to ensure the future viability of the Company. The Union is also aware of the huge losses being endured by the Company in this area.
The Court is satisfied that the options put forward by the Company are the best means of addressing this issue. The Court recommends that these options should form the basis for a settlement of this dispute, with the following option being included in the offer:-
- Take up a three year contract as a merchandiser (on the current merchandiser's rate) with a similar buyout of lost earnings (as applies to the option regarding the warehouse position.)
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th January, 1999______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.