Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter and I also acknowledge recent representations I have received from Deputy Michael Kitt.

The background to this dispute is that last June, Coca Cola HBC announced its decision to outsource those remaining elements of its distribution and warehousing operations which had previously been done in-house, affecting 130 of its employees spread across six sites in Dublin, Cork, Killarney, Tipperary town, Tuam and Waterford. The company allowed a period for consultation to examine any viable alternatives to outsourcing. This period of consultation did not result in an agreement, with the sides being too far apart on the wages that would apply if an in-house operation was maintained. The company has said that the workers could choose between taking redundancy or transferring to the three new outsourced contractors on the same terms and conditions. The three employers to whom the workers had been due to transfer are now the permanent providers to Coca Cola of the services that had been provided by the 130 workers. SIPTU has questioned whether the same conditions would be provided by the three new employers. The union argued that outsourcing could still be avoided through an internal rationalisation.

The issues were then referred to the Labour Relations Commission. However, efforts by the LRC to bring the parties together for discussions were unsuccessful as the different agendas on both sides did not leave room for mutual agreement. The company was willing to talk about a transfer of engagements to outsourcing companies and an accompanying redundancy package. SIPTU was not amenable, however, to pursuit of the outsourcing option.

The union served notice of strike action, which began on 27 August. This was followed on 8 September by the company's implementation of its decision to outsource the warehousing operations to three new third-party providers. A revised severance offer was subsequently made by the company. The company held off on issuing redundancy notices for a week after 8 September, to allow workers to ballot on the new offer. The union did not recommend acceptance of the offer, however, and it was rejected by the workers. Redundancy notices were subsequently issued by the company.

A Labour Court hearing was conducted on 18 September under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which makes the court's recommendation binding on the party that brought the case, in this case SIPTU. I understand the union informed the court it was seeking the implementation of change along the lines of the SIPS, single island production system deal that had been negotiated between the company and the union in recent years. It also requested a feasibility study on the Ballycoolin plant to see how many jobs could be maintained there on existing terms and conditions. The company informed the court that the Ballycoolin operation had already been outsourced. It claimed also that the final severance offer had been rejected by the union, even before a ballot of the workers took place. It maintained that management had acted in accordance with all relevant legislation and best industrial relations practice. The court issued its recommendation on Monday, 21 September. While the Labour Court's recommendation is still strictly confidential to the parties, I understood from media reports that the Labour Court has recommended that the company should offer a redundancy package along the lines envisaged in the SIPS programme. The company's operations in the Republic and Northern Ireland had previously been restructured in the context of the change programmes negotiated with management through programmes such as SIPS. I understand also that the court recommended that the company and the union involved, SIPTU, should have further discussions on the union's proposal to have a feasibility study conducted in relation to the Ballycoolin site in Dublin. About half of the 130 workers are based there, with the remainder in five other sites around Ireland.

The Labour Court recommendation in this case is binding on the union and the 130 workers involved, but not on the company. In this context, I understand that the company is still considering the recommendation. In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court undoubtedly offers the best avenue for resolving the issues in this difficult dispute. In this context, I urge the company to give positive consideration to the court's recommendation on the dispute. In view of the good industrial relations climate within which significant steps have been taken hitherto on an agreed basis and as referred to by Deputy McGrath, I urge both sides to bring the same spirit to bear on the current situation in the interest of achieving an agreed outcome.

See this speech in context