FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : PREMIER GROCERY PRODUCTS IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Selection criteria and re-employability of temporary employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. Premier Grocery Products Ireland Limited took over the Company (known locally as Erin Foods) in August 2006. The manufacturing site in Thurles, Co Tipperary manufactures soups, sauces and gravies. It employs 130 people of which 89 are members of the Union.
The main products of the Company, soups and hot sauces, are in increased demand in winter and therefore there is a need to take on temporary short-term employees, usually on a fixed three-month contract. There is a long-standing agreement that these positions are offered in the first place to staff previously employed on temporary contracts. This arrangement suits both parties and is not disputed.
The claim before the Court has been taken by the Union on behalf of five of its members who had been employed on a temporary basis and who were not offered re-employment. The Company did not consider them as they had been paid redundancy / severance. The Union maintain that the money paid to the five was a goodwill payment for their efforts.
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 11th October, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th May, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Company was in breach of the partnership element of the Company/Union Agreement of 2003 by making a unilateral decision in the re-hiring of temporary and part-time staff and by failing to negotiate with the Union on the matter.
2. The Union maintains that the Company failed to provide any reasonable answers as to why the decision was made not to allow certain employees return to work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. According to the Company/Union Agreement the Company has the sole right to determine the hiring of employees.
2. The Company/Union Agreement also states that "Where previous service has been covered under a redundancy/severance payment, there will be no entitlement to preference."
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union claims that temporary staff should be recalled on the sole basis of seniority. They further claim that five workers who received severance payments should be recalled in line with their seniority. The Company contends that by virtue of an agreement concluded with the Union in 1982 it is only obliged to give preference to those with previous satisfactory service. It also relies on the 1982 agreement in contending that workers who received a severance payment in respect of prior service have no entitlement to recall.
In advancing its claim the Union referred the Court to specific provisions of an agreement concluded in 2003 which, it claims, supports its position on the issues in dispute. Having reviewed these provisions the Court cannot accept that they are capable of bearing the meaning contended for by the Union. Nor can the Court find anything in that agreement which supports the Union's arguments that recall should be based exclusively on seniority.
The Court is further satisfied that the 1982 agreement, in so far as it relates to the recall of temporary staff, has not been rescinded or supplanted by any later agreement. In that regard the Court notes that the five members identified in the Union's claim accepted ex-gratia payments in consideration of severing their connection with the Company. This, in accordance with the 1982 agreement, disentitled those workers to consideration for recall.
In all the circumstances the Court does not see any viable basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court does recommend that the parties should negotiate and put in place clear criteria based on seniority and suitability against which temporary staff will be recalled in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th May, 2007______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.