Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87674 Case Number: LCR11470 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CARLINK LTD - and - TASS |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a worker regarding alleged unfair selection for redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recognises that it is the Company's objective to
eliminate the supervisory position. In this connection the Court
is of the view that this should be achieved by negotiations
between the parties on a voluntary redundancy package. Should
there be a volunteer for redundancy, other than the claimant, then
the claimant should be offered the resultant vacancy at the
current rate for the job. In the event of there being no
volunteer then the redundancy package should be applied on the
basis of 'last-in, first-out' and the claimant offered the vacant
position. The Court further recommends the arrangements outlined
above should be concluded within a month of the date of this
recommendation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87674 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11470
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11470
PARTIES: CARLINK LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TASS)
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a worker regarding alleged
unfair selection for redundancy.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was employed in January, 1981, by Air
Call (Ireland) Limited, a company engaged in the provision of a
paging service. On 3rd December, 1986, the Company here concerned
took over the contracts of employment of Air Call (Ireland)
Limited. The worker concerned was employed as a service operator
however she also had a number of clerical duties to perform. The
Company has encountered severe financial difficulties during the
last number of months. In order to reduce costs the Company
decided that it would have to abolish two positions. In August,
1987, the Company informed the worker concerned that she was to be
made redundant and that her clerical duties were to be taken over,
at no cost to the Company, by one of the directors. The Union met
with the Company to discuss the proposed redundancy, arguing that
if the proposed redundancy was necessary then the parties should
agree a voluntary redundancy package. As agreement could not be
reached at local level, the Union, on 4th September, 1987,
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to a Court hearing on 12th October, 1987, the
Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker concerned is the longest serving and most
senior operator in the Company. The Union maintains
that the Company is making her redundant on the basis
that her wages are higher than the other operators.
It is unjust to penalise a person on the basis of
their wage level. When the worker's hours are taken
into account, the difference in wages is less than
10%.
(b) The Union contends that if a redundancy is necessary,
then a voluntary redundancy package should be agreed
by the parties, and failing a volunteer, the
redundancy should be on a 'last-in, first-out' basis,
as is normal industrial relations practice.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company has encountered severe financial
difficulty which has necessitated the re-organisation
of the Company's affairs (details provided to the
Court).
(b) The Company, because of the financial difficulties,
has already abolished the position of Sales Manager at
a saving of approximately #135 per week. His work is
now undertaken, where possible, at no cost to the
Company. The clerical duties of the worker concerned
can be undertaken by one of the directors of the
Company, also at no extra cost to the Company.
(c) The Company is prepared to pay the worker concerned
her statutory redundancy entitlement as provided for
in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recognises that it is the Company's objective to
eliminate the supervisory position. In this connection the Court
is of the view that this should be achieved by negotiations
between the parties on a voluntary redundancy package. Should
there be a volunteer for redundancy, other than the claimant, then
the claimant should be offered the resultant vacancy at the
current rate for the job. In the event of there being no
volunteer then the redundancy package should be applied on the
basis of 'last-in, first-out' and the claimant offered the vacant
position. The Court further recommends the arrangements outlined
above should be concluded within a month of the date of this
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
19th October, 1987.
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman