FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROSDERRA MEATS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 10 NAMED WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendations r-1186(16/17/18/19/21/23/27/28/31/32)-Ir-11/GC.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose when the Company refused to upgrade the Workers to the next point on the scale on completion of twelve months' service as it had done for the past 22 years. This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 10th May 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I note that the Company and Union have being in negotiations for a long time now and that the Employer has a legitimate concern to reduce costs and improve sustainability of the business. In the meantime, custom and practice has evolved where employees, such as the claimants, would be assessed and upgraded according to their skills generally on being made permanent. However Management have decided to implement Clause 5 of the Agreement in a manner where the claimants in this case would not be upgraded until the anniversary of their being made permanent. I find that, in the absence of an agreed change to their conditions, the claimants in this case had a legitimate expectation to be upgraded from the basic recruitment grade sooner than the company plans to do so. I note that the company plans to upgrade the claimants in the coming months. I recommend that the company and the union agree some clarification on what is to be the practice in the future and pending this to compensate the claimants in this case with €1,000 each in settlement of their claims.
On the 7th June, 2012 the Workers appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th February, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company imposed unilateral changes to the existing arrangements for upgrading the Workers posts, which had been in place for twenty two years.
2.The group of Workers involved in these claims are the first to experience any level of difficulty in relation to having an upgrade on completion of twelve months service.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has seen a significant decline in business due to economic activity along with a fall in its raw material which has impacted the Company in terms of employment, production and retail sales.
2. The Company is currently engaged in negotiations with the Union about a survival plan to ensure sustainability of its business and to protect the employees currently in the plant.
3. Due to an oversight by the Company in the interpretation of Clause 5.1 of the relevant Company/Union Agreement the Company is willing to consider the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation on this occasion only.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of a number of named Workers of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which dealt with their claims that they should have been placed on a higher grade once they become permanent, as was the custom and practice in the Company for many years. The Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation found that the Workers had a legitimate expectation to be upgraded sooner than the Company planned. Similarly, she found that the Company had a legitimate concern to reduce costs and improve the sustainability of the business. The Rights Commissioner recommended that clarification be given on the practice for the future and awarded the sum of €1,000 each in settlement of the case.
Having considered all aspects of the appeal the Court concurs generally with the findings of the Rights Commissioner. Taking account of the Company’s current engagement on cost-cutting measures in the Roscrea plant which addresses this issue going forward, the Court recommends that in these circumstances the Union’s claim should be conceded and the claimed retrospective payments should be paid to each of the named Workers involved in this appeal, in three equal phases, as follows: 1stMay 2013, 1stDecember 2013 and 1stMay 2014.
The Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
22nd February, 2013Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.