FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Cost Savings - Lombardstown Mill
BACKGROUND:
2. Dairygold Co-operative Society Limited, which is the country's largest farmer owned business, manufactures dry animal foodstuffs at their facility at Lombardstown Mill. Management have proposed a number of changes which will reduce the manufacturing costs but some of these proposals will have a negative impact on the take home pay and the overall number of direct employees at the Mill. The Union rejects these proposals on account of the negative impact they will have on the living standards of its members.
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 February, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st April, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union acknowledge the need to address operating costs and have already accepted a number of redundancies and the outsourcing of the bulk out-loading function.
2. With the imminent closure of the Macroom facility and the subsequent transfer of its workload into the Lombardstown Mill, it would appear that there will be enough work, at least in the short to medium term to maintain current staffing levels.
3. The Mill is in a profitable situation, therefore there can be no urgency in the argument for cutting wages and reducing the Terms and Conditions of the Workers breaking the 2000/2001 Agreement.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The re-alignment of Employees Terms and Conditions is the only practicable route to ensure the Society's future and thus maintaining continued well paid employment in a viable milling industry.
2. The current economic environment demands that the proposed changes are imperative if the Society is to reduce its cost-base to a sustainable level.
3. A generous 'buy-out' package is proposed to mitigate for any loss in earnings as a consequence of these changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Company’s“Competitive Re-alignment of Employee Terms and Conditions”proposals. The Company put forward a number of proposals seeking changes to terms and conditions of employment in order to eliminate uncompetitive work practices and ensure the long-term future of the Company. The Union objected to a number of the proposals.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court makes the following recommendations on the Company’s proposals:
800 Guaranteed Hours Pay and 14% Productivity Bonus
The Court notes the Company’s commitment that the 800 guaranteed hours pay and the 14% productivity bonus will remain and that no losses will incur as a result of the implementation of the Company’s proposals. However, while the Union indicated that it was open to discussion on these issues, it expressed dissatisfaction with the level of clarity on the elements of flexibility and productivity required by the Company in return.
The Court is of the view that while these guaranteed hours and productivity bonus have been in existence since 2000/2001 on the basis of pre-existing agreements, Management does have the right to allocate hours out of the 800 guaranteed as required by the business and to ensure efficient use of resources. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that it is not unreasonable to seek additional productivity in return for payment of the productivity bonus.
Therefore, the Court recommends that both parties should enter into further discussions with a view to agreeing the necessary requirements for managing the 800 guaranteed hours and the 14% productivity bonus to ensure a more efficient running of the business.
The Court is of the view that the parties should enter into these discussions along the lines indicated as a matter of urgency with a view to reaching agreement by no later than 15th May 2009.
Loss of Shift Premium
Due to automation of the packaging process the Company proposed to eliminate a late shift (4pm to 12 midnight) as it is no longer required and thereby eliminate the weekly shift premium, and to pay those affected an agreed compensation formula for loss of earnings. The Court notes that a shift premium of 25% has been paid for operating this shift, which has a requirement for one week of lates in every three weeks. In all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the proposal to eliminate the late shift is reasonable and should be accepted on the basis of the Company’s compensation formula – paying twice the annual loss over three equal instalments spread over a period of two years.
Weighbridge Operators
Among the Company’s proposals is a plan to reduce the earnings of the Weighbridge Operators. This emerged following a benchmarking exercise into the level of pay paid to security operatives. The Union strongly object to the analogy made with security operators.
Having examined this proposal the Court does not support management’s plan and consequently does not recommend in favour of a reduction in the level of pay for the incumbent employees operating as Weighbridge Operators.
Mitchelstown Mills
The Court notes the assurance given by the Company at the hearing that its proposals do not encompass employees employed at Mitchelstown Mills.
Conclusion
The Court recommends that on completion of the discussions mentioned above the Company’s proposals as amended by the above clarification/recommendations should be put to a ballot of the Union members as a composite final package.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th April, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.