FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONDELEZ IRELAND - AND - UNITE & SIPTU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay and change (outsourcing).
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Company's proposal to outsource 17 non-core roles in the stores area. This 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 4th September, 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October, 2014.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Unions have consistently cooperated with change.
2 The Company is replacing permanent positions with temporary positions.
3 As these positions are core roles they are unsuitable for outsourcing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is suffering from declining demand and competitiveness.
2 The Company proposes to outsource non-core activity in order to focus on the core activity of manufacturing chocolate.
3. The Company believes these proposals are essential to protect its future.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the course of their submissions to the Court both parties characterised their respective positions on the outsourcing of the stores as not amenable to compromise. Against that background, any definitive recommendation that the Court might make on the substantive issue in dispute would, in all probability, be unacceptable to one side or the other. In these circumstances the Court cannot see how it can be of assistance to the parties, at this time, in identifying a basis upon which the dispute can be finally resolved.
The Court believes that the resolution of the dispute could be advanced by further intensive engagement between the parties through the Labour Relations Commission. The purpose of that engagement should be to identify and address the concerns on both sides.
The Court recommends that further discussions should commence as soon as practicable and should continue for a period not exceeding three months. At that stage, if final agreement cannot be reached, the matter may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th November, 2014______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.