FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WYETH NUTRITIONALS (REPRESENTED BY STRATIS CONSULTING) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Company/Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the Company / Union Agreement.
The Union said that it has been the normal procedure and custom and practice since the plant was established that new positions can only be created by discussion and agreement with the Union.
The Employer said that its interpretation of the Agreement allows it to abolish roles, pursue redeployment to available suitable alternative employment and to enable role amalgamation under the Agreement without a reduction in overall core numbers in an effort to firstly avoid redundancies.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6thNovember 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 24thJanuary 2019.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to the Union’s contention that the Company have unilaterally reduced agreed operator numbers in the Ready to Feed Plant (RTF) in a manner inconsistent with the existing Company/Union Agreement, (the PFC Agreement) which was agreed in 2004.
At the beginning of 2017 there were 16 roles assigned to the RTF area based on a combination of day work and 2 cycle shift. Later that year this was reduced to 11 roles, 5 on day work and 6 on 2-cycle shift. Due to a decrease in production volumes, the Company need to reduce this to 8 cross trained roles.
The Union object to the Company’s proposals as they are not provided for in the Agreement. It submitted that the Agreement does not provide for (a) amalgamation of roles or (b) displacement of existing positions and the creation of new positions incorporating all roles of the displaced position (multi tasks operators). It contended that new positions could only be created by discussion and agreement between the Company and the Union. The Union submitted its proposal to the Company and contended that it was the only proposal permitted within the terms of the Agreement. The Union proposed that the only means of reducing manning levels in the RTF was by reducing a full shift, i.e. going from a 2-cycle shit to day working.
The Company dispute the Union’s interpretation of the Agreement and assert that it provides it with the right to abolish roles, where necessary, to pursue role deployment to available suitable employment and to enable role amalgamation without a reduction in overall core numbers in an effort to first avoid redundancies while still recognising that redundancies may have to be considered.
Due to a drop in production in the RTF the Company sought to re-evaluate its resourcing levels, as that part of the plant is due to close in 2020. Due to the difference in interpretation of the Company/ Union Agreement it has not been possible to resolve this issue. Discussions on this issue commenced with the Union in 2015 and have not been resolved to date.
A number of proposals have been put forward to deal with the matter. The Company gave assurances that there was no risk to employment and that there would be suitable alternative employment for all effected operators. On 27thJanuary 2017, the Company provided the Union with a proposed new RTF operating model and provided job descriptions for proposed new RTF positions, to be advertised. It proposed to run the RTF plant with seven FTE positions and an extra resource person for utility/relief.
The Union rejected the Company’s proposals and held that the Union’s proposal was the only proposal that could be considered. In that regard the Union indicated that the operators were willing to work overtime after day work, when required. This was not a viable option for the Company as the RTF plant could not function on a day basis and it required certainty and guaranteed manning.
On 17thFebruary 2017 the Company implemented its company-wide resource plan advertising a number of roles throughout the plant. The RTF Operators were informed that their roles were being abolished, 8 new positions were being created which would be advertised and filled internally. It stated that displaced staff would be offered alternative employment within the plant, through the normal recruitment process. The Company stated that this was in line with the Company/Union Agreement. In the meantime, the RTF would be operated by 11 Operators.
In June 2017, the Union raised a grievance in relation to RTF Operators performing the tasks of the Utility Operator which it argued should remain in the RTF. In September 2017 RTF Operators threatened to cease carrying out tasks associated with the Utility role, however, it worked under protest while the grievance was ongoing.
The Company surmised that the Union’s stance was in contradiction to the agreed “best practice” commitments, and instead was creating restrictive practice and demarcation. It stated that the Company/Union Agreement provides express commitments to flexibility within the plant and full co-operation to ensure the efficiency of the business and to ensure the plant meets it targets. The Agreement states:-
- “all employees will be required to carry out any task which they are capable of doing to ensure that plant targets are met”.
Furthermore, it includes a commitment to the
- “absence of demarcation and restrictive practices with all employees carrying out any task for which they are trained”
and for the business to meet market demands and production requirements.
The Company/Union Agreement also contains a commitment
- “to common sense and teamwork in that all employees, no matter what their job in the plant, should work together to maximise plant performance and efficiency”.
The Company contest the position of the Union to insist on a narrow interpretation of the Agreement such as to render redeployment and the amalgamation of the tasks/activities a meaningless option in preference to its view that if a role is made redundant, then others cannot be upskilled to take on even some of the tasks of the displaced role.
Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Court is of the view that where one part of the plant will be closed due to the decline in production in that part then a redundancy situation arises. In such circumstances there is an obligation on the Company to take whatever steps are necessary to avoid such redundancies. In this case the Company have made it very clear that the RTF Operators affected will be offered alternative roles, with the possibility of increased remuneration in some instances. If such alternatives roles are not suitable to the RTF Operators, a redundancy situation will arise and the Agreement provides comprehensive details on a redundancy process.
The Court can find no obstacle in the Company/Union Agreement to prevent such a situation from occurring where the business needs demand it. The Court is satisfied that the Agreement includes the right to abolish roles and/or create new roles where necessary. The Agreement is very comprehensive and provides ample scope for flexibility, and best practice to meet the demands of the business. It includes an agreement between the Company and the Union on a “common sense” approach.
The Court finds it difficult to understand how the proposed interim and conclusive proposals surrounding the phased closure of the RTF plant could constitute a breach of the Company/Union Agreement. In such circumstances the Court recommends that the Union and its members should accept the Company’s proposals dated 27thJanuary 2017.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
SC______________________
6 February, 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.