FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLENPATRICK SPRING WATER CO LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Redundancy Terms, Evening Shift Rate and Loss of Night Shift Premium
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to Redundancy terms, Evening Shift Rate and Night Shift premium. The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy terms of four weeks pay per year of service (inclusive of statutory entitlement). It is also seeking the retention of night shift premium for six months and compensation of twice the annual loss thereafter and the retention of the evening shift payment at the agreed rates for existing staff. It contends that the agreed rate for new entrants is 5% but this should increased to 12.5% after six months.
Management's position is that it has secured additional shareholder investment to secure employment and remain viable going forward. It contends that due to an extremely competitive operating environment as well as recent business losses, it cannot enhance the redundancy terms beyond statutory entitlements. It further contends that it is necessary to reduce the evening and night shift premia to achieve the necessary cost reductions and return to profitability in the future.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 9th October 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th December 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union is seeking an enhanced redundancy payment on the basis of the investment in the restructuring and the co-operation of the workforce in the process. The proposed restructuring and reduction in staffing levels will greatly assist the Company in returning to profitability and should be reflected in the redundancy terms on offer.
2 Under the restructuring proposals, a permanent night shift will no longer be required. Given the significant loss of earnings that the workers will incur, the Union is seeking the retention of the rate or an equivalent lump sum compensatory payment.
3 The Union cannot accept a further reduction in evening shift premia. An agreement is in place whereby new entrants are paid a reduced premium (5%) for the first six months of their employment which is then reviewed. All staff should then be paid the agreed 12.5% premium.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company has continued to struggle financially and has recently incurred additional business losses. As a result of the ever changing business environment and the need to restructure in order to return to profitability and secure employment going forward, the Company cannot enhance the redundancy terms beyond statutory entitlement.
2 The premia which are currently paid are excessive and cannot continue. Management has put forward reasonable proposals for the future survival of the Company which should be accepted by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court follows extensive negotiations between the parties at the Labour Relations Commission on the Company’s survival plan. Comprehensive proposals were agreed at conciliation which were set out in a document dated 22ndOctober 2012. These proposals were, however, rejected by the Union.
The Company stated that significant cost reduction measures and investments in new machinery are necessary to restore its competitiveness and survival. Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view thatwith some modifications the proposals which emanated from the Labour Relations Commission and contained in a document dated 22ndOctober 2012 should form the basis of a resolution to this dispute.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that subject to the modifications recommended hereunder the proposals as referred to above should be accepted in settlement of the current dispute:-
- Point Number 5 should be replaced in its entirety with the following:
One third of operator positions will be at senior level post the redundancies and will continue to be paid the Senior Operator rate on a red circle/personal to holder basis.
- Point Number 7 should be replaced in its entirety with the following:
The evening shift rate as agreed by the parties in 2008 should continue as it currently applies to the category of workers covered by that agreement.
Point Number 8 and 9 should be deleted and replaced with the following:
The Court recommends that the Labour Relations Commission proposals as amended to reflect the recommendations of the Court as outlined above should be put to a ballot of the Union members as a composite package in full and final settlement of all the outstanding issues referred to the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th January 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.