FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COCA COLA BOTTLERS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Issues arising from move from Naas Road to Ballycoolin - claim for a Severance Package for Workers who cannot make the move, and claim for Compulsory Redundancy for three Workers who consider that their work has changed fundamentally
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the bottling, warehousing and distribution of soft drinks and as part of its 'Single Island Production Site' (SIPS) project which was announced in 2004, a large part of its activities were transferred to Northern Ireland and the remaining 250 staff to be relocated to Huntstown Business Park, Ballycoolin, Dublin 15 by January, 2009, some 12 miles from the Naas Road site. A package of measures were agreed by both parties (to be put to ballot) but two issues remain outstanding which could have the potential to affect up to 40 Workers.
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 20th August, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd October, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1. Due the extra travel distance and the resulting commuting time and expense a Severance Package ought to be made available to Workers who are unable to make the transfer to Ballycoolin.
2 The three Workers whose jobs have changed fundamentally since the transfer of activities, are entitled to be considered eligible for Compulsory Redundancy as their jobs have evolved to a point that no longer bears any resemblance to that of their original office role.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a relocation situation, relocation is no basis on which to make the Workers in question redundant, therefore no Severance Package can be considered by the Company.
2. There is no logical basis to anticipate that the three Office Worker's roles will decline over time and thus precipitate a redundancy situation at some point in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties. The Court notes that agreement has been reached between the parties (to be put to ballot) on a package of measures in consideration of the move to the new premises. This package contains a number of concessions by the Company which are intended to offset or ameliorate the impact of the move on affected staff. These measures have been accepted by the Union as reasonable in the circumstances.
While the Court can understand that some individuals may find the adjustment involved in travelling to the new location difficult to make the Court cannot, in all the circumstances of this case, find a basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union’s claim for the introduction of a voluntary redundancy programme. In coming to that conclusion the Court is conscious of the number of staff likely to opt for such a package and the fact that the Company would not derive any savings in consequence of such a scheme.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim
In the case of the three individuals referred to in the unions claim, the Court is not satisfied that their circumstances constitutes a situation of redundancy. According the Court cannot recommend concession of that aspect of the Union’s claim
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd November, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.