LCR21413

This matter comes before the Court at a most serious juncture. The Company asserted to the Court that the future of employment in this plant is at stake arising from the issues before the Court.

The Court enquired at the hearing as to the exact context for the hearing of the Court. The Company stated that a failure to find agreement in relation to the matters in dispute would result in the closure of the Cheesestrings plant with consequent loss of employment. The Company also stated to the Court that acceptance of a Recommendation of the Court by both sides, would result in the continued operation by the Company of the Cheesestrings plant on the Charleville site.

The Court has noted that industrial action on the site has extended to another adjacent plant. The Trade Union outlined to the Court that involvement by another plant unaffected by any risk to employment or of plant closure in a dispute of this gravity arose out of a concern on the part of members working in that plant as regards operation of collective agreements on the site as well as a concern that proposals might be made at some time in the future in the adjacent plant as regards Sunday Shift working and ‘appointments’.

The Court recommends that both parties agree and confirm that the existing procedures for resolving disputes as per the Company / Union collective agreement will be fully honoured by both parties and utilised in the future.

The Court also clarifies that no proposals are before it as regards the operation of Sunday Shift working or ‘appointments’ in any location other than the Cheesestrings (Kerry Foods Plant, Charleville) plant.

The Court recommends that consideration be given to the Recommendation and clarifications above in making arrangements for decision making on the substantive Recommendation of the Court below.

The Current Dispute

The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:

Subject to the matters addressed below the Court Recommends that the Trade Union accept the Company proposals contained in the document dated 9^thJanuary 2017 and carrying the reference Issue 2.

• 
  •The Court recommends that both parties agree and confirm that the existing procedures for resolving disputes as per the Company / Union collective agreement will be fully honoured by both parties and utilised in the future.

  •The Court cannot support the proposal that the premium of 33.33 % for four cycle shift working should be supplemented by payment of a premium of double time for all shift hours worked as part of the normal working week falling on a Sunday. The Court therefore Recommends that shift working should be remunerated as proposed by the Company

  •The Court notes the break pattern proposed by the Company. The Court notes that the previous break regime allowed a total break period in the course of a shift of 82.5 minutes and the current regime allows 85 minutes in total. The Court believes that a break regime containing a break of 7.5 minutes has the potential, through its very impracticality, to give rise to friction and contentions of abuse. The Court believes that the pattern proposed by the Company, taken together with the facility to access comfort breaks when required and with proper information giving in that regard, more appropriately represents a regime which can be operated in a manner less likely to give cause for contentions of abuse and Recommends its acceptance.

  •The Court notes that a comprehensive joint exercise has taken place to establish manning in the plant and that the findings of a third party study are in the process of implementation. The Court accepts that manning levels into the future will be a matter for management subject to all legal and other considerations as regards operator welfare and considerations of Health and Safety. The Court recommends however that whenever manning changes occur in the future appropriate engagement should take place wherever issues of Health and Safety and operator welfare are raised.

  •The Court accepts that product safety standards must be met at all times but Recommends that, where feasible and subject normal working, appropriate rotation, at absolute company discretion, should be determined in accordance with Health and Safety requirements and employee welfare.

  •The Court notes the submissions made as regards loss of earnings which might arise. The Court Recommends that this matter should be considered by the parties at a point when the fact of such actual loss can be assessed and evaluated, i.e. after such possible loss, if any, has actually occurred. In the event of loss arising for individuals as a result of this change programme the matter should be dealt with by the parties using normal engagement and dispute resolution procedures as necessary

  •The Court notes the submissions made at the hearing as regards the matter of redundancy. The Court Recommends that the Company should commit to granting voluntary redundancy to those employees who wish to leave their employment with Kerry Foods at this time of change. The Court Recommends that a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 40 voluntary redundancies should be made available by the Company reflective of current circumstances.

Finally the Court recommends that, upon acceptance of this recommendation, the Company should make a payment of €1,000 each to the staff not availing of voluntary redundancy as a gesture towards good industrial relations and in full and final settlement of all matters raised at the Court.

For the avoidance of doubt, and taking account of the protracted and difficult nature of the negotiation of the change needed in the Kerry Foods Plant in Charleville and the need to maintain jobs, the Court recommends specifically that all matters relating to the change discussions commenced in January 2016 should be accepted as concluded and not subject to any further cost increasing claims.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
14th March 2017______________________
JKChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.