FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AIBP MEATS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Possible enhanced redundancy package for employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the introduction of a voluntary severance package for workers who claim redundancy as a result of being laid -off. The dispute concerns approximately 600 workers. The workers are located in 9 sites. The dispute arises from structural difficulties within the industry where full time employment cannot be guaranteed.
The situation came to a head in early 2001 when the EU initiative "Purchase for Destruction" was introduced and was further compounded by the restrictions arising from the Foot and Mouth Disease.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences on 3rd April 2001 and 26th
April 2001 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement
could be reached both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 on 10th May 2001. A Labour
Court hearing took place on the 11th May 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. The workers contend that the price they have to pay to retain their skills is continual short-time working or lay-offs at least once annually, often months at a time.
2. Workers at four sites were laid off and have still not returned to work. 3. In Rathkeale, the cannery workers were offered alternative work in the abattoir but nine declined to take up the offer on the basis that the work was not comparable. 4. Six boners working at Clones, have been laid off for months and staff in the abattoir are on a two day week. 5. In the Bandon site, eighteen staff have been laid off since December 2000 and the balance of eighteen have been on a two day week. 6. In Waterford thirty members were laid off in the boning hall since December 2000 and the boning hall was transferred to Nenagh
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:4. 1. The Company has always sought to find alternative work for its employees. 2. The plants were and are currently short of workers and are dependent on contract labour and foreign nationals 3. The Company offered temporary alternative work to all employees being laid off in Clones and Rathkeale. 4. No SIPTU employees were laid off at the Rathkeale plant, except at their own request. 5. In Bandon, staff were offered immediate temporary employment. This involved considerable expense to the Company as travelling time and cost had to be extended to the employees concerned.
6. In Waterford, no alternative work was immediately available but a rendering plant which had been closed for some years was re-opened in late March/early April. Fifteen employees indicated their willingness to accept the offer of employment there. 7. The Company has honoured all the terms of the PPF due to-date.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that there is considerable disagreement between the parties on the factual background to this dispute. In particular the Court notes that theUnion's claim is in respect of those workers laidoff and for whom there is no immediate prospect of a return to normal working. The company contend that in the majority of cases alternative employment was available but was declined by the workers concerned. They also say that normal working can be resumed within a relatively short time. The Union does not accept this. Further, it is apparent that little if any negotiations took place at conciliation on the substantive issue in dispute.
The Court accepts that the circumstances which lead to the current lay-offs are exceptional and should not, in themselves, be relied upon to support a claim for a severance package.
However it is the view of the Court that if the company is unable to provide continuous employment on an on-going basis it is not unreasonable for the Union to seek a voluntary severance arrangement. It is however for the parties to negotiate and agree the essential terms and conditions under which any such arrangements would operate as well as the circumstances in which they would apply.
This would include the duration and cause of the lay-off before voluntary severance would apply, a clear understanding as to the requirement on the part of employees to accept alternative work and what constitutes suitable alternative work.
The Court recommends that the parties should resume negotiations in conciliation with a view to concluding an agreement on voluntary severance arrangements which takes account of these and all other relevant considerations. This negotiation should continue for a period of four weeks. If agreement cannot be reached the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th May, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.