Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95152 Case Number: LCR14739 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CARTON BROS LTD (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for compensation arising out of a change in working conditions.
Recommendation:
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the
Company's offer of compensation be increased to #300. The Court
further urges the parties to agree to monitor the health and
safety aspects of the new work environment
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95152 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14739
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CARTON BROS LTD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for compensation arising out of a
change in working conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company, under licence from the Department of
Agriculture, Food and Forestry, is involved in the
slaughter and processing of poultry products. The
Company employs 21 workers in its palleting area. At
present this area operates at ambient temperature (-4 c
to +15 c). In order to comply with European Union
regulations, the Company is obliged to operate the
palleting area in a temperature controlled atmosphere
(+1 c to -3 c).
2. The Company has proposed to move the palleting operation
to a temperature controlled room adjacent to where it is
currently done. The Union submitted a claim for
compensation of #1,000 per worker and an ongoing payment
of #20 per worker per week. The Company rejected the
claim and it was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission.
3. A conciliation conference was held on 15th February,
1995. The Company offered #200 per worker as a gesture
of goodwill for acceptance of the proposed change. On
24th January, 1995 the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under the terms of Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute on 7th April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of the temperature controlled
environment will lead to a deterioration in the working
conditions of the workers. The change could lead to a
deterioration of the workers' health arising from the
cold and damp conditions. The workers' claim is
justified by the fact that they will have to work
full-time in the temperature controlled environment.
2. While the change proposed is not the Company's decision,
it will derive benefits by the improvement in the shelf
life of the products. There will be no benefits for the
workers. The Company has claimed that it is unable to
pay the claim. It has always used this argument in
defence of all claims. In the light of the major
changes proposed by the Company, the Union's claim is
reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The change which the Company is forced to introduce is
the norm for the industry. No additional ongoing
payments are made to workers in other plants who work in
temperature controlled environments. The Company must
comply with the requirements of the EU otherwise it will
not be able to operate. The Company has established
that it is not the industry norm for additional ongoing
payments to be made.
2. The workers' pay is significantly higher than most
competitors in the industry. The Company is in a
serious loss making situation. Any increase in costs
will create a serious financial situation and will
further erode competitiveness.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the
Company's offer of compensation be increased to #300. The Court
further urges the parties to agree to monitor the health and
safety aspects of the new work environment
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.