FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHNSON BROTHERS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Relocation of stockroom from Dublin to Limerick.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members currently employed at the company's logistics operations based in Ballymount, Dublin 12. In 2008, the company was acquired by STL Logistics located in Limerick. At the time of acquisition, staff members were assured there would be no changes to the terms and conditions of employment of staff located in Ballymount. However as a result of the downturn in the economy, the company has since implemented pay reductions and has effected 30 redundancies in Ballymount. The company recently announced a decision to relocate its "hard to handle" stockroom facility from Ballymount to Limerick as a cost-saving measure required to assist the company in becoming more efficient. The company confirmed to the Union that there would be no further redundancies in Ballymount once the stockroom has been transferred to Limerick. The Union disputes this and is seeking the retention of the stockroom facility at Ballymount. 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 July, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th July 2011, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejects the company's decision to relocate the"hard to handle" stockroom to Limerick and contends that there is no confidence amongst its members in Management assurances.
2.Staff were previously given assurances that there would be no changes to terms and conditions of employment of current staff located in Ballymount. The Union contends that the company is acting in breach of these assurances by relocating the stockroom to Limerick.
3.The Union is seeking the retention of the stockroom facility at Ballymount and is willing to negotiate further with the company on alternative methods of achieving the efficiency sought by the company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company took the decision to relocate the stockroom to Limerick in order to achieve greater efficiencies and for the company to remain competitive.
2. The company has assured the staff at Ballymount that there would be no further job losses once the stockroom has transferred and any staff affected by the move would be redeployed appropriately.
3. The company asserts that the stockroom relocation should be viewed and accepted as normal on-going change and should not be disputed by the Union for this reason.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to the dispute.
The Court notes that for all intent purposes Johnson Brothers Ltd has been subsumed into STL and is no longer a standalone, commercial, operation at Ballymount.
The Court notes that the decision to transfer "hard to handle" items to Limerick has been taken for what management describes as, "good business reasons", and should proceed unhindered. In addition, the Court takes the view that the company should reiterate its commitment to the maintenance of all the affected staff in employment on their current terms and conditions of employment after this work has been transferred.
The Court notes that the workers employed at the Ballymount depot are concerned about the long-term viability of their jobs within the new company. The Court also notes that the company is concerned about the long-term viability of the depot but confirmed its commitment to a future for the plant provided it is modern, efficient and effective. The parties should immediately engage, in meaningful discussions, to ensure the introduction of modern warehousing methods in order to allow the company to attract sufficient work for the depot and provide on-going employment for the workers concerned.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
8th August 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.