INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED (IDL)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Company decision to contract out additional warehousing facilities at the bottling plant in Dublin.
2. In January, 2006, the Company decided that the management of warehousing of its own products was not core. It intended to contract out the operation with a view to opening a new complex/warehouse in July, 2006. At present there are seven workers involved in warehousing at the Company's Fox & Geese site and the Union wants all seven to be involved in the new warehouse. At talks in March, 2006, the Union put what it terms as an informal proposal that the Company might employ some of the workers in the new warehouse. The Company wishes to re-locate the seven workers to its bottling function. The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). At a conciliation conference the Company stated that it would prefer to have all operations handled by the contractor. However, it made the following offer to the Union.
1. All 7 personnel concerned agree to be re-deployed in our bottling activities in Fox & Geese.
2. All 7 personnel opt for the severance package currently in place in Smithfield.
3. Up to four specified persons would retain IDL financial terms, but would work in the new contract operation with the remaining three opting either for re-deployment in the Plant or severance terms.
The Union rejected the offer and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th of October, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th of January, 2007.
3. 1. The work involved has been done by Company staff (including the seven workers concerned) for manyyears. The Union believes that they can continue to provide the necessary service in the new warehouse. The workers have made a huge contribution to what is a highly profitable Company.
4. 1.The Company was willing to accede to the Union's proposal of four of the workers being employed in the new warehouse. The Union's change of mind - that it now wants all seven workers in the new warehouse - has resulted in costly delays for the Company. The position reached at the LRC is the best solution for both parties.
It is the view of the Court, having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, that the proposal put forward by the Company at the conciliation conference on September 20th, 2006, represents the most reasonable solution to this problem and should be accepted by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st February, 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.