FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONDELEZ IRELAND - AND - UNITE & SIPTU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Hearing arising from LCR 20873
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the outsourcing of Coolock Stores to a third party provider and also a dispute over a pay increase. This dispute has already been the subject of a full Labour Court Hearing LCR20873 refers. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st December, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th October, 2015.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Stores is a core activity which is fundamental to the production process.
2 The Workers have consistently embraced change in order to protect the future of the Company.
3 The Company is proposing redundancies while at the same time recruiting temporary staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is working very hard to maintain current employment levels.
2 Mondelez has offered to pay ex-gratia terms.
3. The Company's offer on pay is above the rate of inflation and is at the limit of what the business can afford at this time.
RECOMMENDATION :
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends as follows
Outsourcing of Stores
The Court notes that Management has made a business decision to outsource the stores operation with a consequent loss of direct employment within the Company. The Court also notes the Union’s principled objection to the outsourcing of “core work”.
This Court respects the respective positions of both parties on those issues and in making this recommendation is not endorsing either of them.
The Court notes that the Unions in the past have agreed to the outsourcing of various functions that were previously undertaken by direct employees. On those occasions the Company and Unions agreed terms on which such outsourcing took place.
In order to bring this dispute to an amicable resolution the Court recommends that the parties engage in intensive discussions over a four week period with a view to reaching agreement on the terms on which the outsourcing now proposed by the Company will be given effect.
Pay
The Court recommends that the dispute regarding the Unions’ claim for an increase in pay be resolved on the following basis:
- 2% with effect from 1 May 2014
- 2% with effect from 1 May 2015
The agreement will expire on 30 April 2016.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
4th November, 2015______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.