Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87769 Case Number: LCR11555 Section / Act: S67 Parties: I.I.G. - and - ITGWU |
Claim by the Union, for the retention of one worker whom it is proposed to make redundant.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to the terms of the agreement reached
at the conciliation conference in February, 1987 does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87769 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11555
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, for the retention of one worker whom it is
proposed to make redundant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the multinational
British Oxygen Company and has plants at Dublin and Cork as well
as depots at Dublin, Kilkenny, Athlone and Limerick. In November,
1986 Management sought 25 redundancies by 31st January, 1987, as
part of a major rationaliation plan. Discussions took place with
the Unions over the following months and an agreement was reached
in Feburary, 1987 at a conciliation conference under the
chairmanship of an Industrial Relations Officer of the Labour
Court. This agreement provided for the achievement of five named
redundancies immediately and various other provisions. It further
stated:-
"The Company's position in relation to implementation of the
remainder of the plan is as follows:-
The second phase of the redundancy plan to be fully
implemented within the following timescale -
50% of balance prior to 31st May, 1987.
Remainder prior to 31st July, 1987
The Court notes that the Union does not accept this
position".
On 31st July, 1987, 23 redundancies had been achieved, two short
of the number sought by the Company. Management sought the
redundancy of the Cylinder Recovery Officer (C.R.O.) based in
Cork. There are three such positions in the Company and the other
two are based in Dublin. The job involves identifying and dealing
with illicit cylinder holdings. The Officer based in Cork
covers the Southern part of the country. In August, 1987 the
Company withdrew a Company car from this individual. This
resulted in strike notice being issued by the Union which was
subsequently withdrawn when the car was restored pending referral
of the matter of the redundancy to the Labour Court. The matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Court on 26th
August, 1987. No agreement being reached at a conciliation
conference held on 22nd September, 1987, the matter was referred
to a full hearing of the Court. The hearing took place on 6th
November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The stated purpose of the Company's plan was not its
survival but the protection of the level of profitability.
Both this Company and its parent Company, B.O.C., are highly
profitable (details supplied). The Union considers that, by
normal criteria, there is no basis for seeking any
redundancies.
2. The Union did not make any committment to the
achievement of the plan either within the timescale sought by
management or at all. Despite this, management was extremely
sucessful in its redundancy objectives in that it secured 23
of the 25 redundancies sought by the stipulated date. There
have, in fact, been a total of 26 redundancies/jobs lost
through natural wastage, in the past 12 months and a total of
91 redundancies since 1984. This is a total labour saving of
approximately #1.3m per annum, ongoing. This is very much
reflected in the profit figures.
3. The role of the C.R.O. is a vital one. The Union
considers that there is more than sufficient work for three
C.R.Os. It believes that to make the Cork C.R.O. redundant
will lead to greater inefficiency of operation, an erosion of
the security of the Company's assets and place an intolerable
burden on the two remaining C.R.O.s.
4. The individual holding the post has held it for eight
years and is married and settled in Cork. He has proved
over time that he is ideally suited to the position and has
invaluable experience at this type of work. Since the job is
not a clerical one in the ordinary sense there exists little
scope for his integration elsewhere. The Union rejects any
suggestion by management that he has "turned down" alternative
jobs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company's understanding of the agreement reached at
conciliation was that all the redundancies required in the
plan would be achieved on an agreed basis and that this would
take place prior to 31st July, 1987 (six months later than
provided for in the original Company plan).
5. 2. In fully honouring the terms of the agreement the
Company has been forced to accept a most disruptive and
unsatisfactory position with regard to the operation of the
cylinder control department. It considers that the C.R.O.'s
function in Cork is redundant.
3. The date of 31st July, 1987 being past, the Company
considers that the problem of the residual redundancies
required must now be addressed and that there are justifiable
grounds for the implementation of this redundancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to the terms of the agreement reached
at the conciliation conference in February, 1987 does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
3rd December, 1987 --------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman