LCR21645

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/17/341

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR21645

CCc-162350-17

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

LAKELAND DAIRIES

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Mr Hall

SUBJECT:
1. Primary Roles.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14 November 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5 January 2018.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union submit that they have engaged with the Company through procedures to resolve this dispute.

2. The Company/Union agreement on transfers does not permit the Company to transfer members in this manner.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company submit that there is no justification for this group of employees to refuse to transfer to other areas to meet the business needs.

2. In line with Company / Union Agreement 2000 management have the right to transfer employees to other parts of the business.

RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Dispute

This dispute concerns the Company’s decision to redeploy, on a temporary basis, a small number of workers from the casein department to the butter department at its Killeshandra plant in September 2017. The redeployment was for the purpose of meeting an unexpected increase in demand for production of butter over a period of weeks. The workers were at no financial loss as a consequence of the temporary redeployment.

Casein is produced on a seasonal basis at Killeshandra. The length of the season in any given year is determined by the availability of milk. The end of the season occurs between September and November each year. The workers in the casein department are then redeployed elsewhere in the Killeshandra plant for the winter months having regard to each individual worker’s particular skillset. There is a local agreement in place between the Union and the Company (entered into in 2011) which makes provision for this seasonal redeployment arrangement and guarantees the workers’ right to return to the casein department at the start of the following production season. That local agreement states, at paragraph 3, that “Separation operator’s primary role will be Separation, at the end of the season, positions elsewhere on site will be allocated by skill set, with seniority on site taken into consideration”.

The case advanced by the Union on behalf of the workers concerned is that the aforementioned paragraph 3 of the 2011 local agreement is to be interpreted as meaning that the workers covered by it and deployed in the casein plant can only be redeployed from that role at the end of the relevant season. Thus, the Union submits, the 2011 local agreement overrides the following provision in a company-wide Collective Agreement negotiated in 2000:

“TRANSFERS
The company may transfer employees from one section to another as the need arises”.

The Company rejects this interpretation of the local agreement. It submits the purpose of the 2011 agreement was primarily to give comfort to the workers employed in the casein plant on a seasonal basis that they would be redeployed in that plant at the commencement of each subsequent season. The Company further submits that the 2011 agreement does not override its right to transfer employees, in a reasonable manner, in response to changing business needs, which right is unambiguously enshrined in the 2000 Collective Agreement.

The workers employed in the casein plant receive a bonus payment for the duration of the casein production season. In the course of the hearing, the Company confirmed that none of the workers redeployed in September 2017 suffered any financial loss as a consequence of their redeployment to the butter plant. It also explicitly committed that this would continue to be the case in the future should it be necessary to temporarily redeploy workers from the casein plant elsewhere in the business during the casein production season.

Recommendation

The Court does not accept the Union’s submission to the effect that the 2011 local agreement should be interpreted as amending the ‘Transfers’ provision (quoted above) in the 2000 Collective Agreement. The latter is accepted by both sides as a fundamental provision of the Collective Agreement and is not specifically referred to at all in the 2011 agreement.

The claim, therefore, fails.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Alan Haugh
LS______________________
23 January 2018Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.