Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Andrews for raising the matter and acknowledge his constant contact on this matter over recent weeks.

The industrial dispute involving workers from Marine Terminals Limited has resulted from workers' concerns over the company's initial cost-cutting proposals involving 13 compulsory redundancies and the introduction of new contracts of employment for the remaining workforce. I understand that a number of workers have voluntarily availed of the redundancy offer. The company offered a severance package of two weeks pay per year of service, in addition to statutory entitlements. The new contracts proposed by the company would involve a reduction in pay and allowances averaging, according to company figures, €15,000 per worker. Up to 50 workers, who are represented by SIPTU's MPGWU Branch, have been involved in the dispute.

On 20 May 2009, following two months of local talks, the parties attended at the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation talks. However, I understand there was disagreement about the presence at talks of security personnel accompanying the employer representative and, accordingly, the talks did not proceed.

Subsequently, the union referred a complaint to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act, 2007 which was referred to the redundancy panel. The panel advised the Minister to seek the opinion of the Labour Court. The Labour Court's opinion was that the 13 compulsory redundancies were legitimate redundancies. Shortly afterwards, these workers were made redundant by the company. However, the court felt that if workers were made redundant for not accepting new contracts of employment, as had been threatened by the company, an exceptional collective redundancy situation could arise.

I understand that the company subsequently introduced short-time working and replaced workers who reported sick with workers from elsewhere in the group. I understand that the company may have provided living and sleeping facilities at the MTL terminal for some or all of these workers, who come from Belfast and Scotland.

On 3 July 2009, pickets were mounted at Marine Terminal and have been ongoing since. Protest marches have also been organised. According to the union, the company issued P45s to more of the workers. Talks in mid-August failed to progress the issues in dispute and the company rejected a proposal to refer the issues to the Labour Court.

Two injunctions were obtained by MTL against the union and named individuals. The first was obtained in early July and limited the picket at the company's cargo terminal to communicating information, or peacefully persuading people to abstain from work. The second, obtained at the end of August, resulted from allegations of intimidation and harassment of workers. Following a protest which involved boats attempting to blockade the port on 27 August, Dublin Port Company obtained an injunction against a number of people. I assume these are the people to whom Deputy Andrews referred.

Talks were held at the Labour Relations Commission in late August and early September. Unfortunately, no agreement was possible and the union referred the issues to the Labour Court, pursuant to section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Under this provision the union would be bound by the court's subsequent recommendation.

I understand that the court has scheduled a hearing for the afternoon of Monday 28 September and has invited the company to attend. The experience and expertise of the court, in my view, now offers the best avenue for resolving the issues in dispute. I urge the company to agree to attend the Labour Court hearing and for both parties to engage fully in the process. I urge the parties to put their difficulties and differences behind them and approach the court hearing in good faith and with a view to accepting the outcome of the process, namely, the Labour Court's recommendation.

Ireland's system of industrial relations is, essentially, voluntary in nature and responsibility for the resolution of industrial disputes is a matter for the parties involved. The system of industrial relations in Ireland is designed to help and support parties in their efforts to resolve their differences, rather than imposing a solution on the parties to an industrial dispute. Responsibility for the settlement of this dispute rests, ultimately, is with the parties themselves. The obligation lies with the parties to seek to resolve their differences and to carry their efforts through to completion.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to raise this important matter in the Adjournment debate. Today I support the Coca Cola workers who are in dispute. I speak as a former Coca Cola worker who worked on the company's lorries as a helper for many years. I urge the Minister of State to support the SIPTU members concerned and I urge the company to listen to the genuine grievances of the staff. This is the fifth week of the dispute and the company will not listen to the Labour Court recommendations.

At a meeting in Liberty Hall in August it was decided by the SIPTU strike committee that pickets would remain in place at Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company, HBC, Ireland depots in Dublin, Cork, Tuam, and Tipperary, because of the company's refusal to address the issues at the centre of the dispute, including its decision to outsource the jobs of 130 distribution and warehouse staff.

Coca Cola HBC revealed profits of €201 million in the six months to the end of June and has begun a process of restructuring in Ireland, Austria and Italy, cutting almost 5,000 jobs since 2008. Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company Limited is a Greek-based company in which the US Coca Cola company has a 23% stake.

The strike committee has always said that any discussions to resolve the dispute must be without preconditions and that the company must follow agreed industrial relations procedures and allow all parties to air their views. This dispute will continue for as long as these workers are denied the right to be employed by Coca Cola HBC. I am appalled at the manner in which a multibillion euro global company is treating 130 Irish workers. This is before we have the vote on the Lisbon treaty and the rights of workers. It is happening in Ireland today, pre-Lisbon.

Coco Cola HBC has threatened and intimidated these workers into accepting a redundancy package which they do not want. The company has threatened workers with injunctions and, to date, two workers on the picket lines have been injured, one requiring hospitalisation, as a result of having been hit by a vehicle that crossed the peaceful picket lines.

It is ironic that in 50 years of relationships with SIPTU and the former ITGWU there was never the need for any form of industrial action. The new management's attitude to industrial relations in the company and towards the institutions of the State is a breach of all previous agreements which have served both parties very well for more than 50 years.

I pay tribute to, and to support the staff of the Tuam plant. I commend Eugene Carty and the SIPTU members for their dedication, efforts, dignity and patience over the past five weeks. I stand by them in the Dáil today. They have a genuine grievance and all our industrial relations machinery has proved them correct.

It is not good enough for the company to act in an arrogant manner, especially in the current economic climate. I call on the management team to meet soon and resolve this matter. It is a blatant injustice to leave these workers out in the cold for five weeks. I urge the Minister of State to use any clout he has to force the company to move. Stagnation is not an option. All that the SIPTU members want is fair play and justice.

I urge all Members of the Dáil and Seanad to support the SIPTU Coca Cola HBC strikers and do their best to end this dispute.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.