Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD95366
Case Number: LCR14839
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
|
Subject:
Compensation.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, takes the view that the
negotiations covering the closure of the transport section were
specific to that section and the settlement was appropriate to
their particular pay structure. The Court considers that the
warehouse staff are covered by the overall joint negotiating body
and transfer to the production area is within the scope of the
mobility agreement.
Nevertheless the Court has to acknowledge that a number of
employees, whilst designated warehouse staff, were in fact, at the
exigencies of the Company, part of the transport section and were
in some cases occupied for a significant part of their time in
that section.
Accordingly the Court recommends that these employees (four
utility, one spare, and one seasonal worker) should be paid pro
rata to the transport section.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95366 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14839
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 25 workers who are employed in the
dispatch department. The Company proposes contracting out
its transport warehousing and distribution operation with
effect from 31st June, 1995. Agreement has already been
reached with drivers on the proposal and compensation has
been paid to them for relocating from driving to factory
work. The Unions, on behalf of the workers concerned, are
seeking compensation in line with the terms applied to the
drivers. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 12th June, 1995.
Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the
15th June, 1995. The Court investigated the dispute on the
27th June, 1995.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's decision to contract out the transport
warehousing operation is not part of the ongoing change
provided for under the existing Company/Union Agreement.
It is a once-off major change.
2. The workers in the dispatch area will suffer a loss of
earnings. Most of them work overtime and with the
drivers form an integral part of the Company's transport
operation. They should enjoy the same treatment as
drivers and receive similar compensation.
3. Utility persons, spare, seasonal and trucker, did not
receive the same consideration as drivers, yet all of
them undertook driving duties and enjoyed the same job
rate, pay and conditions as regular drivers. It was
part of the utility workers job to act as relief drivers
and two of them spent up to 80% of their time driving.
Their financial loss is substantial.
4. The Company's decision to contract out its transport
distribution business will mean savings in excess of one
million pounds per annum. The workers concerned, as a
result of the Company's decision, will suffer a
substantial loss of earning and must be adequately
compensated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Dispatch workers are part of the production group and it
is totally consistent with their conditions of
employment that they be relocated back into the factory.
2. The Company/Union Agreement provides for payment of any
loss of shift or grades and the Company has offered
compensation to the workers concerned in accordance with
the Agreement.
3. The settlement relating to drivers was based on a unique
working hours structure. Overtime hours were built in
to the standard hours giving rise to a `job rate'.
These circumstances do not apply elsewhere in the
factory. The workers involved in this dispute operate
under the same working hours as the rest of the factory.
The level of overtime worked in the dispatch was
significantly lower than transport and it was not worked
on a regular basis.
4. In recent months 79 employees were moved from shift to
days with loss of shift rate and overtime in some cases.
All these changes took place in accordance with existing
agreements.
5. Concession of the Unions' claim could give rise to
consequential claims from other groups within the plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, takes the view that the
negotiations covering the closure of the transport section were
specific to that section and the settlement was appropriate to
their particular pay structure. The Court considers that the
warehouse staff are covered by the overall joint negotiating body
and transfer to the production area is within the scope of the
mobility agreement.
Nevertheless the Court has to acknowledge that a number of
employees, whilst designated warehouse staff, were in fact, at the
exigencies of the Company, part of the transport section and were
in some cases occupied for a significant part of their time in
that section.
Accordingly the Court recommends that these employees (four
utility, one spare, and one seasonal worker) should be paid pro
rata to the transport section.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th July, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.