Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88136 Case Number: LCR11837 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KAYFOAM WOOLFSON LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the selection procedure for lay-off.
Recommendation:
11. The Court, having considered the submissions and subsequent
correspondence from the parties, is of the view that the Company
did not act unreasonably in its method of selection of employees
for lay-off in all the circumstances which applied at the time of
lay-offs. The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of
the Union's claims. The Court further recommends, however, that,
for the future, greater attention should be given to the extension
of the amount of training which individuals receive to enable
compliance with Clause 12 of the Company/Trade Union Agreement
governing interchangeability.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88136 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11837
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KAYFOAM WOOLFSON LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the selection procedure for lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which employs a total of 47 workers, is engaged
in the manufacture of polyurethane foam for the upholstery
industry (most of which it exports to the U.K.), bedding and
ancillary products (soft furnishings etc.).
3. The Company operates a 2 grade structure within the factory -
Grade 1 with 42 male workers, and Grade 2 with 5 female workers.
The Grade 2 workers are engaged in pillow filling and sewing.
Grade 1 workers are engaged in a variety of duties. Flexibility
exists within grades but not across grades.
4. In December, 1987, the Company informed the Union that because
of a further decline in the pillow business, it proposed to
lay-off 2 workers (Grade 2) employed in the pillow section with
effect from January, 1988. The Company informed the Union that it
would adopt the same procedure as had applied to effect lay-offs
in 1986, under similar circumstances i.e. in accordance with
Clause 14 of the Company/Trade Union Agreement - seniority within
grades and having regard to the skills which the workers possessed
in order to maintain effective production.
5. Coinciding with the decline in the pillow business the U.K.
Government announced draft regulations regarding the manufacture
of polyurethane foam which had a drastic effect on the industry
and in the demand for foams (details supplied to the Court). The
Company informed the Union that it would be necessary to lay-off a
number of Grade 1 workers and that the lay-offs would be based on
seniority having regard to the need to retain certain skills.
6. The Union advised the Company that the lay-offs would be
acceptable on a last in first out basis on total service within
the Company irrespective of grades and objected to the Company's
proposal to retain certain skills.
7. Following meetings at local level and an unofficial dispute,
the workers agreed to return to work and process their grievance
through normal procedures. The Company went ahead with the
proposed lay-offs - two Grade 2 workers were laid off on 28th
January, 1988, and seven Grade 1 workers on 11th February, 1988.
In effecting the lay-offs of the Grade 1 workers the Company
identified one person whom it wished to retain out of seniority.
Three of the workers (Grade 1) have since been recalled by the
Company because of an improvement in the foam business.
8. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 8th February, 1988. A Conciliation Conference was
held on 10th February, 1988. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 28th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Union contends that most of the work carried out in
the factory would be well within the competence of the Grade
2 workers (females) who have long service in the Company. In
fact an equal pay claim on behalf of the female employees was
successful - Equality Officer's Recommendation No. 4/1987.
(This recommendation has been appealed by the Company to the
Labour Court). Therefore the selection process for lay-off
should be on a seniority basis irrespective of grades.
2. Management claim that the Union is in breach of the
Company/Union Agreement. However the Union contends that the
workers have complied with the Agreement as they have
co-operated with Management on the concept of flexibility of
operations. Interchangeability and mobility of labour go
along quite unimpeded. This had applied equally for male and
female workers.
3. Regarding the worker who was retained out of seniority
because he was needed to work a specific machine it is the
Union's contention that a more senior worker to him should be
re-employed as there is another worker who can carry out this
job. He was employed on this machine before and with a small
degree of training he would be fully proficient in a short
period of time (details supplied to the Court).
4. The Union is claiming that the two Grade 2 (female)
workers should be re-employed immediately and be paid
compensation for loss of earnings for the time they were
laid-off as there was no justification for the lay-offs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company believe the issue of the equal pay claim and
work of equal value has been erroneously confused and
interwined with the procedure to be adopted in the event of
lay-offs, which is an industrial relations issue.
Irrespective of whether the claimants in the equal pay claim
are deemed to be carrying out work of equal value as set out
in the criteria of the relevant Act, the nature and type of
work carried out by the respective grades is not comparable
and this is a fact which can be observed. There is a large
range of work within Grade 1 which, regardless of whether
Grade 2 employees do work equal in value or not, could not be
carried out by Grade 2 employees.
2. The Union claim for strict application of seniority
across grades is an attempt to fundamentally alter the
grading structure within the Company. Such a move would have
a major effect on the Company's operations, seriously
affecting the application of flexibility within the factory
and consequently affecting the long term job security of all
employees. The Company has adopted an established procedure
for lay-offs, as on a previous occasion.
3. It must be accepted that if an employee possess skills or
experience necessary to the Company, which is not possessed
by employees with longer service in the Company, this
employee must be retained. Having said this, it is not the
Company's policy or intention to lay-off employees of longer
service where this can be avoided. The Company has made
every effort to minimise the effect of the necessity to
retain skills and has advised the Union of its intention to
retain a group of longer serving employees in a broader range
of skills. The retraining programme has been hampered by
absenteeism levels, of which the Union has been notified
accordingly, and the chaotic fluctuation in production plants
due to the developments in the foam industry. The Company
believes that the area of dispute is marginal and that the
practical application of the Company's proposals will not be
a cause of a genuine grievance.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court, having considered the submissions and subsequent
correspondence from the parties, is of the view that the Company
did not act unreasonably in its method of selection of employees
for lay-off in all the circumstances which applied at the time of
lay-offs. The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of
the Union's claims. The Court further recommends, however, that,
for the future, greater attention should be given to the extension
of the amount of training which individuals receive to enable
compliance with Clause 12 of the Company/Trade Union Agreement
governing interchangeability.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
29th April, 1988.
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman