FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loyalty payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early, 2002, the Company informed the Unions that it intended to cease production in Ireland. Discussions took place between the parties on a number of issues, including a loyalty payment. In July, 2002, the Company sold its Tallaght manufacturing plant to Fruitfield Foods. Whilst most of the issues in dispute were agreed on, the Company refused to pay the loyalty payment.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 5th of September, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relation's Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of November, 2002. The Company did not attend the hearing but, in a letter to the Court, stated that an employer-employee relationship no longer existed between itself and the workers.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Loyalty payments have been paid to other Companies which when they were sold e.g. Cablelink to N.T.L., and Tayto when it was sold by Beatrice Foods.
2. The Company gave no indication in the early discussions that it would not pay the loyalty payment. The Company is situated in City West and is still operating very successfully. The workers, however, face an uncertain future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company did not attend the hearing but sent a letter indicating that "as there is no longer an employer-employee relationship between the employees in question and Nestle Ireland"it did not believe it appropriate to respond to the dispute in question.
Based on the written and oral submissions made by the Union, the Court is satisfied that an employer-employee relationship existed when this matter was raised with the Company. Indeed, discussion took place between the Company and the Union over a period of time on pensions, redundancy payments and a loyalty bonus.
While the Court accepts the Company's right to concede or reject the claim for a loyalty bonus, it does not accept that because the discussions were terminated at short notice, the status of the claim changed.
The Court is of the view that the Company should continue its discussions with the Union, and so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
29th November, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.