FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHIVERS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Proposed changes in working arrangements in the vacuum plant
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 110 people at it’s plant in Coolock, Dublin and is involved in the manufacture of jam for the Irish food sector. The Company contend that due to competitive pressures resulting in a dramatic decline in orders, changes to the way the vacuum plant operates are being sought. The changes sought are as follows:
- Plant Operators: These operators work shift work and instead of moving to days, the plant operators would remain on shift but be flexible with regard to their duties and working hours. No overtime would be available, however. Compensation would be given based on a proposal made by the Labour Relations Commission.
Batchweighers: Agreement to move from shift to alternate rotating shift, with flexibility being required by the Company. Any loss of earnings due to loss of shift would be compensated for.
- The Union, on behalf of its members employed in the vacuum plant and one member affected in the pectin plant, disagree with the proposed changes, contending that it will result in a loss of earnings for the individuals concerned and that a fair compensation package should be made for the introduction of the Company's new proposals.
- 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 12th May,2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th July, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
- 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 12th May,2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th July, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. A fair compensation package should be made for the introduction of the Company's new proposals which should include 2 years buy-out for the loss of shift premium, overtime to be compensated by a 2 year buy-out as a result of the 6.30am to 7am overtime being eliminated, any agreement reached not to have a negative impact on anyone else's overtime earnings and any compensation agreed to include the Union's member affected in the pectin plant.
2. The Union's members have always co-operated in showing full flexibility whenever the Company has asked. This situation has not changed but the members believe that because of the negative impact on their earnings that adequate compensation should be made without having any impact on any other member of staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Changes were and are necessary to address the fall in volumes going through the vacuum plant. All the changes proposed by Management and agreed for acceptance by the Union during negotiations have been within the parameters of the house agreement in relation to flexibility and shift/working hours changes.
2. The issue has been ongoing for 14 months and the need for changes in the running of the plant have become more urgent. The individuals concerned are not being asked to do anything outside of their terms and conditions of employment or outside of Company/Union agreements. They are being well compensated for the changes required and the Company asks that the Court recommends in its favour and require the individuals to abide by the agreements made.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned that the stagnation concerning these matters is having a negative competitive affect on the Company's ability to trade.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the proposal made by the IRO on 13th December, 2004 be accepted and the changes operated with full flexibility and agreement, with immediate effect.
Should this be fully implemented on a continuing basis, the compensation package already offered should be subject, in this case only, to an increase of 10%, the extra amount to be paid as a lump sum, at Christmas 2005.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
23rd August, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.