FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SUPERVALU CHILL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Terms for redeployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates four distribution depots in the Republic, two in Cork and one each in Dublin and Galway. The Dublin and Cork depots distribute fresh and chilled goods.The chill depot operates an Annualised Hours Contract and in the first 3 years was run on a team led self managed basis. This model was difficult to bed down and the Company made a decision to strengthen the management structures in order to increase standards and efficiencies.
The Company proposed that the position of Distribution Team Leader, in operation since 2000, be abolished and a new position of Line Manager be created. This would involve competitive interview. The Company also proposed redeployment or redundancy for those who were unsuccessful in the competitive interview.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim for compensation for those who were unsuccessful in securing Line Manager positions and who opted for redeployment.
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 6th August 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th November 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The members argue that there is little difference between the role of Distribution Team Leader(DTL) and Distribution Team Member(DTM) in their practical implementation.
2. The members were redeployed as a result of a Management decision. They accepted the DTL role in good faith and with the expectation of long term promotional benefits. They have now suffered a loss of income which is a double hit on these members.
3. There is a widespread practice in the industry of red-circling pay rates in these kind of circumstances, i.e. when the demotion is at the Company's behest.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company put forward the redeployment proposal as an alternative to redundancy, as it is anxious to protect employment in the future and retain the skill and experience of its existing staff.
2. The Company has put forward what it believes to be a reasonable proposal for compensation and has attempted to secure agreement to a revised period of protection for DTL rates, without success.
3. At the chill depot in Cork, where a similar restructuring took place, a redeployment package was agreed between the Company and the Union whereby earnings are protected for a period of two years from the date of redeployment.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the circumstances of this case, and having regard to the relatively short period in which the claimants were in receipt of the higher rate, the Court does not consider that indefinite red-circling is a viable option.
The Court recommends that the claimants should retain the higher rate until the end of 2003 and that it then be bought out at an amount equal to twice the annual difference between the DTL rate and DTM rate.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th November, 2003______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.