Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87823 Case Number: LCR11538 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ALFA CAVAN LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the unfair selection of certain workers for redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the Company's proposals are not unreasonable
in the particular circumstances. The Court accordingly recommends
that the Union accept these proposals and that both parties have
further discussions on the proposed re-deployment of the workers
concerned.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87823 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11538
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ALFA-CAVAN RUBBER MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the unfair selection of certain workers for
redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. As a result of the deterioration of the value of the U.S.
dollar and the consequential reduction in value of exports to the
U.S. the Company is undergoing an extensive rationalisation
programme. The Company has declared 11 general operatives
redundant and these have been accepted mainly on a voluntary
basis. At a meeting which took place on 1st October, 1987, the
Company indicated it had a requirement to reduce the supervisory
staff by 3 and sought 2 voluntary redundancies. It proposed that
the remaining supervisor be redeployed as lead hand in the
warehouse/shipping areas. Subsequently the two supervisors were
offered jobs on the factory floor. The number of supervisors is 4
according to the Union and 5 according to the Company. The Union
rejected the Company's proposals on the basis that despite closing
one department and the impending closure of another one there
would still be a need for 3 supervisors. The 4th supervisor
should be allowed to revert to his former job as a fitter in
maintenance. The Union also objected to the retention of another
worker as one of the supervisors. This worker's position in the
Company is a matter of dispute between the Company and the Union.
The Union maintain that he was initially recruited as a training
manager and subsequently became a "jack of all trades" within the
Company. The Company while agreeing that he was taken on as a
training manager maintain that for the past number of years he has
assumed supervisory duties. As no agreement could be reached the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. Conciliation conference were held on 20th and 29th
October, 1987. As a resolution was not possible both parties
agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 10th November,
1987. The Company have not issued any notices of redundancy
pending the outcome of the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company are looking for two redundancies from among
the supervisory staff. There is no need for either of the two
people named by the Company to be made redundant. One who is
a fitter could revert back to the maintenance department. At
the moment there is an apprentice fitter working there who is
near the completion of his apprenticeship. The Company should
give the supervisor concerned that job after the worker has
completed his apprenticeship.
2. In the case of the other supervisor, he is being declared
redundant while another worker who is a non-union member and
not a supervisor is being retained to take on supervisory
duties. This worker is part of the management personnel and
has acted as an unofficial supervisor for the past four years
- giving him less service in this grade than the worker who is
being declared redundant. The Company have argued that this
worker has specialist skills unique to the Company. The Union
holds that the skills of their members are just as unique and
important. Therefore the Company is using an unfair selection
procedure in determining that the two named workers be
dismissed.
3. Both the workers concerned have given loyal and efficient
service to the Company and have suffered considerable personal
abuse from the workers under their control because of the
duties they are required to fulfill. They are both middle
aged and married with familys with very little prospect of
obtaining alternative employment.
4. In conclusion the workers concerned object to being made
redundant because their jobs remain in existence, they are
being replaced by non-union management personnel and if there
are to be redundancies it is not them who are due for
dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The selection procedure with regard to redundancy for
supervisory staff has been established through previous
redundancies. The Company retains those with the best skills
and expertise and then with all things being equal on a last
in first out basis based on service in the supervisory grade.
4. 2. The workers whom the Company wish to retain have essential
experience in the given areas and general running of the
plant. The worker with whom the Union have taken exception to
has over 20 year's experience in the rubber industry and has
indisputedly the widest product knowledge of any individual in
the plant. He was initially employed as a training officer
but as the workers skills improved his role became more
involved with day to day supervision in the plant. The fact
that he is a non-union member is his business and has not
influenced the Company, in reaching its decision in retaining
him. The Company will need his expert knowledge in helping to
run a slimmed down operation where individual employee
responsibilities will be broadened.
3. The two supervisors who were named for redundancy were
offered jobs on the factory floor. This offer was rejected by
them as they maintained that because of the positions they
held within the Company taking these jobs would lead to ill
feeling among the other workers on the factory floor.
4. While redundancy at the best of times is an uneviaable
task management in this instance has complied with fair
practice and procedure in its selection of the two workers
concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the Company's proposals are not unreasonable
in the particular circumstances. The Court accordingly recommends
that the Union accept these proposals and that both parties have
further discussions on the proposed re-deployment of the workers
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
18th November, 1987
M.D./J.C. Deputy Chairman.