FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SMURFIT WEB PRESS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - GRAPHICAL PAPER & MEDIA UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Equalisation of Holidays
BACKGROUND:
2. Smurfit Web Press and Smurfit Web Pre Press are companies within the Jefferson Smurfit Group. Between them they employ approximately 90 staff at Glasnevin, Dublin.
In 1998 Smurfit Web Press entered into a business partnership with the Repro Company VLM Ltd. The new Company Web Pre Press was located within the Smurfit Web Press premises.
At the end of May 2002 Smurfit Web Press bought out their partners, VLM Ltd and renamed the Company Smurfit Web Pre Press. Employees at VLM Ltd were entitled to 26 days holidays. The claim before the Court today is for equalization of the 26 days holidays for the 9 members at Smurfit Web Press that are enjoyed by the ten GPMU members in the Smurfit Web Pre Press Limited, previously employed by VLM Ltd. At present Smurfit Web Press members are entitled to 21 days holidays.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th December 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th February, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim for the 5 extra days holidays by Smurfit Web Press staff is justified because the Smurfit Web Pre Press and former Web Pre Press staff are interchangeable and flexible.
- 2 All Web Pre Press employees are working in and for the same company now i.e. Smurfit Web Press.
- 3. New entrants recruited from outside agencies receive 26 days holidays in Smurfit Web Pre Press.
- 4. Members in the former Smurfit Web Press company have been working on a regular basis in Web Pre Press for the past four years and have not received the extra 5 days holidays.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 This is an opportunistic claim by the GPMU and concession of this claim would lead to repercussive claims throughout the organisation.
2. The Company complied with Transfer of Undertakings requirements by ensuring that employees who transferred retained their existing terms and conditions of employment.
3. An option open to the Company at the time was to close down the manual pre press operation and contract in the Repro work. This would have resulted in job losses.
4. The Company have provided security of employment to its employees including GPMU members.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the former employees of VLM Ltd retained their conditions of employment, which were established by their contracts of employment with that Company, pursuant to the European Community (Safeguarding of Employees' Rights under a Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 1980. In these circumstances the conditions in question are personal to the individual employees in question and are therefore red-circled.
Accordingly, that arrangement cannot give employees of the transferee Company a right to those conditions and for that reason the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th March, 2003______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.