FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JACOBS FRUITFIELD - AND - UNITE AMICUS / TECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compulsory redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Jacob Fruitfield Food Group was created in August 2004 as a result of the amalgamation of Fruitfield Foods which had been acquired from Nestle in 2002, and Irish Biscuits, which was purchased from Groupe Danone in 2004.
In January 2008 the Company announced that production at its biscuit factory in Tallaght would cease by early 2009 resulting in the loss of 252 jobs.
Since 28th January 2008 the Company has had discussions with 4 different union groupings representing Production Operatives, Craft Technicians, Supervisors and Administrative staff. On 19th February, 2008 a meeting took place with the Craft Unions to discuss redundancy terms. The Craft Unions felt that the Company was not in meaningful negotiations and that they had no alternative but to refer the case to the Labour Relations Commission.
The Company continued in negotiations with the other unions and a meeting on the 1st April culminated in final terms of redundancy for all groups of staff. The terms as agreed on 1st April are being recommended for acceptance by Union Officials and Shop Stewards for Unite (Production Section), SIPTU and BFWAU. The Company is confident that the terms will be accepted by the other small groups of employees.
The dispute between the Company and the Craft Unions, representing fifteen employees, 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 7th May, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believe that there should be no cap on the redundancy payment but if there has to be a cap it should be salary based, which would be fair and equitable for all employees.
2. Some of the Craft Workers have 40-42 years service but because they were not allowed to join the pension scheme until they were 25 years of age now find themselves 7-9 years short of their full pension.
They now have to wait until they are 65 years of age to get a reduced pension. The Union are seeking to have the pension augmented by an additional 5 years.
3. The Union are seeking a payment of 1 years' salary to 3 Craft Workers who joined the Company 4 years ago with the expectation of a secure future and who are now being made redundant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company's stated position from the outset of negotiations has been that the same redundancy terms would apply to all employees. This has been accepted by all other employees.
2. The Company maintains that all employees in the business gain significantly more from this agreement when compared to any other previous deal.
3. The terms offered represent the Company's full and final offer with regard to the orderly closure of its manufacturing operations in Tallaght.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the object of the Company in the negotiations was to provide a redundancy package with common terms for all affected employees, including management grades. In the Court's view this approach was both equitable and in line with normal practice.
It is further noted that Unions representing the majority of affected staff had accepted the package on offer.
The Court accepts that the circumstances of the Craft Group are somewhat different to those of other groups in some respects. Nonetheless, the overall package is in line with some of the better packages provided in similar circumstances in other employments. It is also clear that certain modifications were made to the package, in the course of negotiations, which took account of issues specific to the Craft Group.
In all the circumstances the Court regards the Company's final offer as reasonable and believes that it should be accepted.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th June, 2008______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.