FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST FRANCIS ABBEY BREWERY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR10017/02/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. St. Francis' Abbey Brewery (SFAB) is part of a global beverage business Diageo (previously Guinness UDV). The core activities on the SFAB site are the brewing and packaging of beer for the Irish market.
In June 2000, the Company signed a rationalisation agreement entitled K-2 with all the representative bodies on the SFAB site. The agreement between the parties was to maintain the site as a competitive supplier, in a changing business market.
The Union is in dispute with the Company over the treatment of a worker who had thirty eight-years' service with the Company. His duties were that of a maintenance operative, until the rationalisation programme brought an end to his area of work. The Union is seeking the following on behalf of the worker:
(a) Payment of the Group 2 Work Pattern Allowance (WPA) with effect
from the 1st July, 2000. This amounts to £9,446 (€11,994) annually
in current terms.
(b) Payment of the Work Pattern Allowance benefit on pensionable pay at £91.67 per month. Therefore,from July, 2000 to December, 2002, the worker's pension would increase by £2,750 (€3,493).
Management rejected the Union's claim.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 23rd August, 2002. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"I believe the Company's offer should be amended to read "voluntary retirement
date extended to 1/11/2002". The remainder of the offer to remain unchanged
and I recommend it should be accepted by both parties in settlement of this dispute".
The Union appealed the Recommendation on the 24th September, 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 9th May, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rationalisation programme (K-2) was signed off between the Company and the Union on the 14th June, 2000. It was described as a "survival package" and combined the reduction of fifty jobs with new work methods including team structures and annual hours contracts.
2. As part of the survival package only the core jobs were to be preserved and those members engaged in "non-core" work, such as that of the claimant, were to be transferred to either the brewing area or the packing area on either a permanent or part-time basis.
3. All the workers voted on the K-2 document knowing that either brewing or packing awaited them. The claimant opted for the packing area which attracted the Work Pattern Allowance. In addition, his annualised pensionable pay would be increased by £91.67 for each month he worked this system from July, 2000 up to his retirement from the Company.
4. There is no reason why the worker should be selected for less favourable treatment than other workers. It was a package that provided certain agreed levels, pension and pensionable pay benefits, job reductions etc. The Company is now attempting to breach the K-2 agreement.
5. It would not make sense that anyone would wish to avoid working a shift pattern in the declining years of their service in the Company knowing that this was an ideal opportunity for them to enhance their pensionable pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company sees the worker's claim as invalid because the packaging area has both day and shift roles.The worker expressed an interest in the day operations for personal reasons.
2. The Company rejects any allegations regarding a commitment that the worker would be working shift within 3 months of K-2 commencing.
3. The worker is not being treated any more or less favourably than other work colleagues. A number of other SIPTU members expressed an interest in areas (brewing and packaging) that they were not subsequently appointed to. Five of the workers worked days, like the claimant, and retired without any adjustment to their pay for pension purposes.
4. To concede the worker's claim would have knock-on effects throughout the Company with those currently working and those retired and could effect other sites in the country.
5. The worker has already received compensation for loss of earnings amounting to €27,729. If he received a different work pattern allowance, than that on which the loss of earnings was based, the value of the increase would have to be netted off the compensation already paid. The net result would be zero benefit to him.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all aspects of this appeal. The Union is of the view that the appellant was entitled to the payment of the Work Pattern Allowance (WPA) while employed in the RB area of Packaging and that this payment should be reflected in his pension benefit in accordance with the K2 package. The Company's position is that the RB area of Packaging involves day working and therefore no WPA applies.
In an effort to settle this matter the Company made an offer on 24th May 2002, which provided shift work for four months with the benefit of the WPA and four months benefit for his pensionable pay. The Rights Commissioner recommended an amendment to this offer by recommending an extension of the voluntary retirement date. The offer was rejected by the Union, as it did not include retrospection. The Union sought implementation of the offer with the issue of retrospection being referred to a third party for adjudication. In response the Company, withdrew the offer.
The Court is of the view that the offer of 24th May 2002 should have been allowed to stand while all the other issues were referred to the Rights Commissioner. To address the appeal before the Court, the Court determines that the value of the terms of the offer should be reflected in the appellant's pension benefit only, from the date of offer to the date of his retirement.
The appeal is, to that extent, allowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd May, 2003______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.