FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay parity between plants.
BACKGROUND:
2. Cadbury Ireland manufacturing which comprises two sites in Coolock, Dublin, and Rathmore, Co Kerry, has been a successful business operating with a valued reputation within the overall Cadbury Schwepppes group.
In 2006 the Coolock facility faced a serious threat of closure. In May 2007 negotiations between the Company and the Unions at Coolock, including SIPTU, were successfully concluded. The Agreement reached secured the future of the Coolock site. In return for the major changes the Company agreed a number of improved terms including a 3% pay increase over and above the terms of Towards 2016.
The dispute before the Court is a parity claim by the SIPTU members employed in the plant based in Rathmore, Co Kerry, with their colleagues working in the Coolock plant in Dublin.
The Company is willing to pay the increase and benefits but only on the basis of a local agreement on a range of issues that are designed to offset the cost of the increase and improve the efficiency of the plant.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and 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 14th January, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th March, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions' members have always recognised the needs of the Cadbury Rathmore site.
2. The Vision 2000 programme whereby the Company introduced new methods/staffing for production has been fully applied since the actual application date.
3. The Unions' members recognise and appreciate that to ensure economies of scale the shift patterns must be scheduled to exploit the assets of the site thus rendering it cost-effective.
4. As illustrated, the Employees do and will embrace changes that logically improve the efficiencies of the plant i.e. new technologies, SAP, etc.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The investment of 3% must be offset by tangible cost savings i.e. must be cost neutral. The Company cannot accede to any cost-increasing claim without securing comparable savings in operational costs.
2. The Company accepts that the revised terms and conditions agreement in Coolock can be applied to colleagues in Rathmore once the required local agreement has been achieved.
3. To date the first 0.5% increase and the €700 payment have been paid to colleagues in Rathmore. This was done in good faith to ensure no disadvantage occurred while negotiations were concluded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The increase claimed by the Union was paid to those at the Company's Dublin plant in return for their agreement to significant cost-saving measures. In the Court's view the claim for a similar increase by those at the Rathmore plant is only sustainable if it can be offset by similar savings based on future efficiencies. In that regard the Court cannot accept that past or existing flexibilities can be relied upon to justify the increase.
The Court notes that the Company has put forward proposals which, if implemented, would offset the cost of the increase claimed. It is accepted that these are the only measures which could realistically generate the savings required.
The Court recommends that the Company's proposals should be accepted but that further discussions should take place between the parties on implementation of these proposals. In particular the parties should put arrangements in place whereby those who may be displaced by the outsourcing of services will be provided with an option of suitable alternative employment within the plant.
These discussions should commence immediately on acceptance of this recommendation and should last for no more than four weeks. If final agreement is not reached within that timeframe outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th April, 2008______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.