FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARRABAWN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Breach Of Redundancy Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a change in work patterns introduced by the Company at its site in Nenagh, County Tipperary. It is the Union's contention that the worker in question was unable to reach an agreement with the Company with regard to a change in his hours of work. Further to this, the Union contends that the Worker had reached an agreement with the Company to commence the redundancy process. The Company disputes this claim and states that it has advised the Worker that his current position was still available meaning that the criteria for redundancy did not apply in this instance. Following a Conciliation Conference Report dated May 23 2016 the Workplace Relations Commission referred the issue to the Labour Court on the 26 May 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on July 19 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Union argued that the Worker in question was entitled to work day shift only in line with a collective agreement between the Union and the Company. A compromise had been offered to the Company which would have enabled the Worker to work around the new shift system. Having been unable to reach an agreement with the Company regarding a change in the Worker's shift patterns, the Union believes that an agreement was reached to offer the Worker redundancy. The Company has not begun this process and as such, is in breach of the agreement the Union believed to be in place.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company believes that the Worker's role continues to remain in the business and it is only the pattern of work pertaining to this role has changed. The Company therefore argues that redundancy does not apply in this instance. Following a failure in negotiating new terms for the Worker, the company advised the Worker that his hours of work would continue as before.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Worker has been employed since approximately 1999 at the Respondent’s Dairy Ingredients Division in Nenagh. He currently works in the bagging section from 6.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on a seasonal basis and subject to an annualised hours’ agreement. He is paid a premium rate for working between 6.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. and on Saturdays.
In March 2014, the Respondent proposed to merge its bagging/forklift and warehouse departments at the Nenagh site and to move to a 24/6 and 24/7 12-hour shift pattern in order to achieve greater efficiencies at the site and in anticipation of an expected increase in milk supply. While the other workers on the site stood to benefit from the proposed new arrangements, the Worker who is the subject of this dispute would have suffered a financial loss as he was not in line under the proposal to receive a €1.00 per hour increase in pay because he currently has a €1.00 per hour differential with his colleagues. This is a bone of contention for the Worker and he is seeking to maintain the pay differential between him and his colleagues. The Respondent proposed to compensate the Worker by way of a ‘buy out’ of his loss at the rate of once the annual loss. The Respondent, in the alternative, offered the Worker a different day job at a nearby location. Both options were rejected by the Worker as they would result in a significant financial loss to him, he believes.
The Worker maintains that he enjoys the benefit of a clause in a collective agreement that guarantees those who were working day work at the time the agreement was concluded that they would continue working day work only for the duration of the agreement. In the absence of an agreement regarding appropriate compensation, the Union submits that it had an agreement with the Respondent whereby the Worker’s position would be made redundant and he would receive redundancy on established terms of 6 weeks’ pay inclusive of statutory. The Respondent submitted to the Court that it does not accept that the Worker’s position is redundant.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Worker should be accommodated with day work at his current location and that the range of duties he is to perform as part of that arrangement should be agreed between the Respondent, the Worker and his Union representative. The Court further recommends that the Respondent makes a once-off payment of €10,000.00 to the Worker to buy out his current red-circled benefits/premium payments and to compensate him in full for the change in his working arrangements.
The Court sees no merit in the Worker’s claim for an increase in his hourly rate of pay.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
JD______________________
28 July 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.