FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAGEO IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of a global drinks Group trading in 180 markets and has its headquarters based in London. The dispute concerns 16 Workers, the last to remain of a total of 95 Employees of the Provincial Logistics Group. The Workers deliver Diageo products to its customers and also carry out other support duties. In March 2006 the Company announced that it would in future outsource all its Provincial Logistics network on a phased basis. Employees were offered redundancy or early retirement terms, one worker availed of a transfer to another depot while some workers transferred to outside contractors under Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment Legislation. The remaining group of employees seeks an enhanced Severance Package as in their opinion their options are somewhat curtailed.
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 19th June, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th October, 2007.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company confirmed that the I.A.B./ Cahill terms will not transfer to a new employer and that there is also no option of redeployment within the Company thus the remaining workers have no option but to take redundancy or early retirement, justifying an enhanced redundancy package.
2. The €97,000 claim per person for loss of earnings is a core issue as far as the Unions are concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no justification for treating 16 out of a group of 95 employees any differently as any enhancement to the terms could have serious knock-on effects.
2. There never were any previous discussions on the demand for a €97,000 lump sum for loss of earnings for each Worker. If they were to redeploy to a new Employer they would not suffer any loss.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered both the written and oral submissions of the parties in the respect of the Unions' claims concerning the redundancy terms to apply following the outsourcing of the Company's remaining provincial logistical operations.
In 1996 an agreement was reached between the Company and the Union on the outsourcing of these operations. A Severance Package called " the IAB/Cahill Redundancy Terms" has applied in those locations where the Company has outsourced its provincial logistical operations to date. The Company is now in the process of outsourcing the only remaining areas, the Kilkenny and Dundalk operations.
The claim before the Court concerns the sixteen provincial distribution workers located in Kilkenny and Dundalk and the Unions' claims for the enhancement of the IAB/Cahill Redundancy Terms to apply to their case.
The Court recommends that the IAB/Cahill Redundancy Terms should be applied to the remaining sixteen workers concerned in respect of the completion of the outsourcing of the Company's residual provincial distribution operations in Kilkenny and Dundalk subject to the proviso that those four of the sixteen workers presently under the age of fifty should be retained in the Company's employment until each of them in turn reaches the age of fifty when the IAB/Cahill Redundancy Terms should be applied to them.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th November, 2007______________________
JF.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.