This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

LCR22349

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/20/308
C-164982-20
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22349

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990


PARTIES :
ARRABAWN CO-OP
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

14 GENERAL OPERATIVES
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Geraghty
Employer Member: Ms Connolly
Worker Member: Mr Hall

SUBJECT:

1. Terms relating to the commissioning / running of a new casein plant.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute relates to a claim regarding the commissioning and running of a new casein plant.

The Union argued that there is a significant effort on the Workers’ part to commission the plant and that the responsibilities with 2 plants would be increased significantly for some members. A Key Operator role exists currently on the site to provide a graded structure for areas of responsibility. There is a need for a responsible person on each of the 4 shifts.

The Employer said that it has doubled the workforce and that there is no extra responsibility on the Workers. This constitutes normal ongoing change within the business.

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 9 November 2020 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.


A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 January 2020.

UNIONS ARGUMENTS:


3. 1. There is a significant effort to commission the new plant and the responsibilities with 2 plants will be significantly increased for the Workers.

2. A ‘once off’ payment for the commissioning of the plant would recognise the Workers’ significant contribution.

3. The casein operator role is complex with many variables to control. There is a need for a responsible person on each of the 4 shifts.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The company has always maintained that the addition of a second casein facility constitutes normal ongoing change within the business.

2. In respect of the team leader roles, the company has always stated that the long-term structural requirements of the business are under review and that there would be full consultation on any changes in respect of the casein plant operators’ role, prior to any changes in the employee structure.

3. A key part of the Company pay agreements with SIPTU is that the pay increases are inclusive of normal ongoing change.


RECOMMENDATION :

The Court was advised of particular circumstances in this case which gave rise to expectations on the part of the Workers concerned.

This Recommendation is designed to maintain the trust and the working relationship between the parties. The Court accepts the position of the Employer that the establishment of a new plant, in itself, is not a basis for a claim for additional remuneration.

Such significant investment is likely to have long term, positive consequences for both the Employer and Workers. The Court has set out previously what it considers to be normal ongoing change and in this case the Employer has paid already for this. However, given the unique circumstances that gave rise to expectations, the Court makes the following Recommendation;


1. In future, normal on-going change should not give rise to claims for additional remuneration.

2. The seven Workers who were in the employment of the company at the relevant time of July 2019 should receive a ‘once-off’ voucher of €500 as a gesture of good-will.

3. Workers taken on by the company since that date to work on the new plant should receive a ‘once off’ voucher of €250 as a gesture of good-will.

4. The parties should engage in ongoing dialogue regarding the staffing requirements of the new plant, having regard to the aspirations of the workers to generate career opportunities and to the company’s ultimate right to determine its staffing needs. In this regard, the Court notes that the Employer advised of an open mind regarding staffing requirements in the area concerned. If there are still issues between the parties at the end of 2021, they should avail of the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission to seek to achieve a resolution that reflects both the rights of the Employer and the legitimate career aspirations of the Workers.


This Recommendation arises in the unique circumstances of the instant case. Because of that uniqueness, by definition, it cannot constitute a precedent for any future case.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
CR ______________________
29 January, 2021 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.