FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY GROUP (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Craft Workers being treated less favourably during lay-off periods.
BACKGROUND:
2. Kerry Foods, Carrickmacross manufactures frozen ready meals predominantly for the export market. Early in 2012 the business suffered a decline in orders and the Company had to look at options to reduce production. In March 2012 the company announced a number of shut-downs over the course of the year by way of a document entitled 2012 Engineering Shutdown Schedule.
The Union engaged with Management to discuss the fact that the Craft Workers were at a greater loss of hours than the production staff and the Union's contention that this amounts to discrimination on equality grounds.
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 30th August, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th November, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The lay-offs had a greater effect on the Craft Workers than on the production staff, it follows that the Company are in breach of their own code on Diversity and Equality by not treating all employees equally.
2. The Union is seeking appropriate compensation for their members for the number of extra shifts lost due to this inequality of treatment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The lay-off of Craft Workers was in line with their normal work-patterns and was implemented to ensure both the orderly shutdown and proper set-up for production.
2. The Company is adamant that the Craft Workers were not treated unfairly as the requirement for lay-off was based on the needs of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes that the lay-off envisaged for week 15 and 22 included a shutdown for the preceding two Sundays as well, this impacted on some of the Craftsmen and had no impact on the Production Operatives due to the different shift/working patterns operated by both categories. The difference occurred due to the requirements of the business and the necessity to implement a shutdown period in order to reduce costs.
The Court is of the view that the different impact which affected the Craftsmen in comparison to the Production Operatives arose as a consequence of the business necessities of the Company at the time and therefore, the Court does not accept that the Company treated the Craftsmen less favourably than the Production Operatives.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim for compensation. However, the Court recommends that in the event of any future lay-offs that the parties should engage with a view to minimising the impact on all job categories.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th January, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.