FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GUINNESS IRELAND LIMITED - AND - GUINNESS STAFF UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1993, the Company put forward proposals to contract-out provincial distribution in Irish Ale Breweries (IAB) by the end of December, 1999. The Guinness Staff Union (GSU), which represents the staff category of employees, agreed redundancy terms in 1995 and SIPTU/ATGWU, which represent drivers, agreed terms at a later date. The GSU states that it was told by the Company on a number of occasions that, if the drivers achieved a better redundancy deal, that deal would also apply to its members.
In August, 2000, the SIPTU/ATGWU referred a case to the Labour Court concerning the interpretation of its redundancy package. The Court issued Labour Court Recommendation LCR16681 on the 27th of November, 2000, which recommended that the redundancy terms would be "open-ended" for a specific group of named employees only. When the GSU became aware of this agreement, it sought the same terms for five of its members in IAB Distribution.
The Company refused to extend the agreement to any other employees and the issue was the subject of a conciliation conference on the 8th of February, 2001 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of March, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th of June, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a long-standing arrangement in Guinness that core agreements are applied across all categories of employees. The Company has agreed a core issue, redundancy terms, with one category and refuses to apply it to another category.
2. The GSU reached agreement on redundancy terms for the staff group in 1995. The Union settled first on the basis that, if drivers achieved a better deal, that deal would also apply to its members.
3. Concession of the Union's claim would have minor implications for the Company. The main benefit to staff would be the application of 'Added Years' for pension purposes for a staff member retiring at age 50 or later. The maximum total number of added years the group would be awarded is 19 years.
4. LCR16681 recommended the application of redundancy terms to a specific group of people beyond 2000. The GSU are prepared to apply that recommendation to an equally specific group of people.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The GSU agreed redundancy terms on behalf of its members, which were known as "Plan 2000" terms, and which expired on the 31st of December, 2000. The current redundancy terms which are available are known as "Transforming Guinness" terms.
2. While defending its position at the Labour Court in August, 2000, the Company argued that concession of the SIPTU/ATGWU claim would lead to knock-on claims from other trade union groups within Guinness. This claim, and a further claim from SIPTU on behalf of their members in IAB Ballyfermot, are prime examples of the Company's fear being realised.
3. The Company accepted LCR16681 on the basis of "red circling" a specific group of employees. The trade union officials involved agreed that this would not be used as a precedent in any other case. If the Company concedes this claim, albeit to a small number of GSU members, the potential knock-on throughout the Company would not be sustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views of both sides in this dispute. The Court is satisfied that the Union entered into and agreed a package in 1995, which allowed for the contracting-out of the IAB distribution operation by the end of December, 1999. The applicability of its terms specifically included the termination date as 31st December, 2000. This was the package which was balloted upon, accepted and signed with no provisos.
In a letter from management, as a result of assurances sought by two Unions on behalf of another category of employees, a variation to extend the agreement was secured. It is evident that the Labour Court, in LCR No. 16681, intended to limit this variation to named individuals, thereby excluding other persons, when it recommended that the variation should be red-circled for those named individuals. As the Union in this claim does not have such an agreement to extend the package, it is the view of the Court that these unique arrangements should not be extended to the claimants in this case.
Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd July, 2001______________________
D.G./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.