LCR23233

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

BACKGROUND:

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 14 July 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 February 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court are claims by SIPTU, on behalf of 14 general operatives employed at the company’s site in Charleville, County Cork, for (i) a limited number of voluntary redundancies, (ii) a lead-in payment, and (iii) retention of a Team Leader grade rate. The claims arise from the closure of the “Shapes Department” at the site in November 2023. Employees impacted by the closure were redeployed to alternative work on other lines on site. The company rejects the claims.

Union Position

The union submits that the closure of the “Shapes Department” constituted a significant change for impacted employees, who were required to move from a 2-cycle shift to a four-cycle 24/7 operation.

The union seeks a limited number of voluntary redundancies for impacted employees, given the significant change to working patterns. It further seeks that a lead-in payment of €2,000 applies to employees working the new shift arrangement, as compensation for the significant change in working patterns. The union relies on precedent in the company for offering voluntary redundancies and lead-in payments for similar restructures and changes to shift operations in the past, as referenced in previous Labour Court recommendations.

The union further seeks the retention of a Team Leader rate for one individual. It submits that there is an established practice for workers moving to lesser roles to retain the rate held prior to the move. As only one individual is impacted (another individual has since left the company), red circling the rate to that individual would ensure no knock-on claims.

Company Position

The company rejects the union’s claims. It submits that all impacted employees were redeployed to suitable alternative work on site with the same terms of employment. As the company was in hiring mode at the time of the closure of the ‘Shapes Department’ and remains in hiring mode, no redundancy situation exists.

Employees were given adequate notice of the change in shift pattern, in line with a document of understanding agreed between the union and the company in 2017. Employees who received lead-in payments in 2017, and those with contracts of employment specifying 24/7 shift cycle arrangements or flexible hours, are not eligible for any payments. The company proposed a payment of a €1,000 to those hired on day-working contracts only, which was rejected.

The company submits that the individual who seeks retention of the Team Leader rate did not apply for a team leader role in the new department, or any other team leader roles advertised since, and that it cannot continue to pay a Team Leader rate to an individual who no longer works in that role. An offer of compensation based on 1.75 times the annual loss of the rate was declined.

Recommendation

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties.

The matters before the Court arise from the closure of the “Shapes Department” at the company’s site in November 2023. The Court notes that the employees impacted by the closure were redeployed to alternative roles on site with the same terms of employment.

Redundancies

The union relies on a precedent on site for making a limited number of voluntary redundancies available to employees following similar restructures /changes to shift operations, as referenced in two past Labour Court recommendations.

In the view of the Court, the circumstance of this dispute differs from the circumstances that arose before the Court previously, where it was contended that the future of employment at the plant was at stake from the issues in dispute at that time. In this case, the Court can see no basis to support a proposal that the Company implement voluntary redundancies in circumstances where no redundancy situation exist and the company remains in active hiring mode.  As a result, the Court cannot support this aspect of the union’s claim.

Lead in payments

The union seeks a lead-in payment of €2,000 to compensate workers for changes to shift patterns in November 2023. It rejects the company’s position that individuals who received past compensation awards are ineligible for further payments. The company maintains that such employees were compensated in 2017 for full flexibility and are required to cooperate with shift patterns changes as provided in a 2017 document of understanding agreed between the parties providing for future shift pattern changes with the giving of adequate notice. It further relies on individual contractual terms of employment which require employees to cooperate with shift changes.

In this case, it is not contended that any agreement between the parties was breached. In the Court’s view, no basis has been put forward to support the claim that the workers concerned are entitled to lead in payments in circumstances where the document of understanding presented to the Court and agreed between the parties in 2017 provides for changes to shift patterns with adequate notice. The role of the Labour Court is to uphold collective agreements in place unless it is requested by both parties to do otherwise. The Court in this case has not been asked to vary the terms of agreements in place.  On the basis of the oral and written submissions made, the Court recommends in favour of the company position on this matter.

Retention of Team Leader rate

The union’s claim in relation to the Team Leader rate relates to just one individual but has collective implications relating to the retention of payments for roles when a worker is redeployed. The Court heard that there is an agreed formula for compensating workers for such losses as overtime earnings, but there is no collective agreement in place between the parties in relation to this matter.

The union’s position is that retaining a rate on a personal to holder basis would ensure no knock-on claims, while the company position is that it cannot pay rates to individuals who do not retain a role and to do so creates inequities within departments. The Court notes that the company removed the rate from the individual concerned some 18 months after he moved from the team leader role in the Shapes Department.

Having regard to the submissions made, and the specific circumstance outlined in this case, the Court recommends that the company proposal to compensate the worker based on 1.75 times the annual loss of the rate be accepted.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AR	______________________
09/03/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.