FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARTON BROTHERS (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. Somers |
1. Transfers and seniority.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a chicken processing plant based in Shercock. It employs approximately 250 people. In 1997, due to restructuring in the Shercock plant, some redundancies took place and some staff were redeployed into other areas.
In early 1999, the Company informed the Union of its plan to invest in new machinery which would lead to redundancies and the redeployment of staff.
The workers concerned were transferred from the evisceration section. They are known as "floaters" which means that they can be transferred anywhere in the plant depending on staff requirements.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of these thirteen workers for payment of compensation as follows:
- £5,000 per employee concerned.
- A permanent position.
- No change in start and finish times.
The Company rejects the claim, stating that the workers who were redeployed as a result of the restructuring in 1997 received no compensation. The Company made an offer of £2,500 to any worker concerned required to change their start times at the request of the Company. This was rejected by the Union.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level.
The issue was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, held on the 11th of October, 1999. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of May, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the following for each worker concerned:
- £5,000.
- A permanent position.
- No change in start or finish times.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers who were redeployed as a result of the 1997 restructuring did not receive compensation. The situation in 1999 is almost the same.
2. There has been no loss of earnings for the workers concerned.
3. The Company's offer of £2,500 to any worker required to change his/her start and finish times at the request of the Company was rejected by the Union.
The Union's claim cannot be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The current working arrangements applying to this group of 13 workers is based on Company/Union agreements.
The Company has indicated that it would consider any proposals for change put forward by the Union, but given the current agreements the Court finds no basis for paying a compensation lump sum. However, the Court notes that the Company has indicated that permanent jobs are likely to become available for this group.
The Court, having considered the claim in detail, recommends that the employees accept the Company's offer, that those in the group of 13 who change their starting times be paid £2,500.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th May, 2000______________________
G.B./C.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.