FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. 1. Procedural Agreement 2. Method of selection for redundancy 3. Compensation for loss of earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1990 upon the merger of Ballyclough and Mitchelstown Co-Operatives. It employes approximately 2,000 staff.
Throughout it's existence the Company has operated in a tightly regulated market. However, it is now moving into a deregulated market where there will be greater levels of national, global and EU competition and change is necessary to put the Company on a solid commercial footing.
In July, 2003 the Company made a presentation to the Union giving an overview of it's proposals for the future and indicating areas where they wished to negotiate change. In October, 2003 agreement was reached on a number of issues.
The dispute before the Court concerns three issues, namely:
1. Procedural agreement, 2. the method of selection for redundancy and 3. compensation for loss of earnings.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and 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 of January, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of February, 2004.
A letter recommendation issued on the 23rd of February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
Procedural Agreement
3. 1. The Union have told the Company on a number of occasions, and restate their commitment, that they are willing to negotiate and reach agreement on a replacement procedural agreement. The current agreement has been in place for 20 years.
2. The Union attended a meeting in November, 2003 to negotiate a new agreement but were unable to do so as the Company presented them with a 'fait accompli'.
Method of selection for redundancy
3. There is an existing agreement between the Union and the Company on the selection process for redundancy.
4. The Company introduced unilaterally a new selection process without discussion, negotiation or agreement with the Union.
5. The Union has agreed to look at the process and commit to try to find and negotiate a solution to the problem.
Compensation for loss of earnings
6. There is an agreement in place between the Union and the Company for the past twenty years.
7. In July, 2003 the Company discontinued the payment of any compensation in the event of loss of earnings without any negotiation or discussion.
8. The Union requests that the original agreement be reinstated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
Procedural Agreement
4. 1. Management formally notified the Union of the need to vary substantial parts of the old procedural agreement in August, 2003.
2. As no agreement was reached at the end of the notification period in November, 2003 the Company had no option but to implement changes without delay.
Method of selection for redundancy
3. It is imperative, that in equipping the Company for the future, the selection for redundancy is based on skills and competencies and not solely on seniority.
4. The company is prepared to consult with the Union on the procedures and implementation factors once the principle of selection is accepted.
Compensation for loss of earnings
5. The Company is not in a position to be able to address loss of earnings claims should they arise.
6. The Company will respond appropriately to any claims by employees for loss of earnings on a case-by-case basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court against the background of financial losses and a belief by management that the competitiveness of the business is being eroded. Management believe that their capacity to respond to these conditions is impaired by work practices and procedures provided for in outdated agreements which they regard as unsuited to the current requirements of the business. For it's part the Union accept the need to secure the future viability of the business and the employment which it supports. They accept that change is necessary to this end but are opposed to what they regard as the unilateral attempts by management to impose variations in current agreements. The Union stated their willingness to earnestly and constructively negotiate a new agreement with management.
In the Court's view change is best achieved by negotiation and agreement. Where, as is the present case, the need for change has been identified and acknowledged, negotiations should be clearly focused on the objective to be achieved and conducted with a degree of urgency commensurate with the difficulties which have to be addressed.
In their written submissions and in the course of their presentation to the Court the Union have emphasised their unqualified commitment to cooperation with change within a negotiated framework. The Court accepts the Union's bona fides in that respect.
Accordingly the Court recommends as follows:
- The parties should now commit to entering further negotiations with the objective of securing a new procedural agreement and a new selection process for redundancies. These negotiations should commence as soon as is practicable and should be concluded within two months of the date of this recommendation.
- In the interim period there should be no compulsory redundancies.
- With respect to the formula for loss of earnings, the Court recommends that current arrangements be modified as follows: anticipated loss of earnings over two years should be paid as 25% up front, 50% after one year and the remaining 25% at the end of the two years subject to the anticipated loss having actually occurred.
- In order to ensure the maintenance of an atmosphere of good will conducive to the reaching of final agreement, the following conditions should be observed during the interim period of two months within which the negotiations are proceeding.
- There should be no changes in terms and conditions of employment without agreement.
- Where reasonable changes in work practices are required five working days notice should be given and there should be full consultation with the employee(s) concerned and their Union, as appropriate, during this notice period.
- The employee(s) and the Union should not unreasonably impede the implementation of change.
- Management should implement the changes in a prudent and pragmatic manner, having regard to the need to preserve the goodwill of those affected.
- No disciplinary action should be taken against any employee arising out
- Any issue arising during the interim two-month period relating to changes in work practices referred to above should be referred to and resolved by the Joint Negotiation Forum within one week.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th March, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.