FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY AGRIBUSINESS (GOLDEN VALE) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. 2001 agreement - extra payments for dilution of benefit of the agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Dairies Division of Kerry Agribusiness operates a number of production sites as part of its processing and distribution of dairy products. In Limerick city the Company operated a dairy from Clare St since the late 1970's. The Golden Vale-Lansdowne facility was acquired in the summer of 2001. This left the Company with two liquid milk processing facilities in close proximity within Limerick city.
Prior to the acquisition, the Golden Vale Lansdowne site had introduced a new working agreement in 2001 for Production Employees. The dispute before the Court concerns a pay claim by the Union arising from the transfer of milk volume to Lansdowne from the Clare St facility in 2005. The Union expressed concern that the agreed hours and benefits would be eroded by the added production and are seeking a lump sum payment for all employees.
A number of meetings took place between the Union and the Company but the dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th June, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th March, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contend that the Company is now trying to utilise the excess capacity resulting from the efficiencies created by the Workers under the 2001 Agreement.
2. The introduction of a new shrink wrapper machine to increase the effectiveness of the Lansdowne plant caused considerable disruption and difficulties for the Workers during the introductory period of its installation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management have made an offer as a goodwill gesture. The proposed compensation payment is contingent upon on-going cooperation with production activities and the implementation of the working agreement in full.
2. The argument for extra payments is a cost increasing claim outside the terms of National Pay Agreements and as such is rejected by the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for compensation as a result of the transfer of additional milk volumes to the Lansdowne Road Goldenvale site and the associated disruption caused to a shrink wrapper. It claims that the additional work created as a result dilutes benefits agreed in an Annualised Hours Agreement reached in 2001.
Management rejected the claim, stating that overall volumes had not breached the levels anticipated under the agreement and maintained that its actions were part of its efforts to create a viable and efficient operation. However, due to disruption caused to the shrink wrapper machine and other general difficulties, the Company made an offer to pay a goodwill payment of €10,000 to be divided between the operatives affected. This offer was rejected by the Union.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that the Company’s goodwill payment offer should be improved to €17,500 and should be accepted in full and final settlement of the claim by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th April, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.