Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87966 Case Number: LCR11619 Section / Act: S67 Parties: POWERS SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS,;GROCERS AND ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS |
Dispute concerning the proposed redundancies of 5 workers employed as audit clerks.
Recommendation:
19. The Court accepts that this is a case of redundancy due to
re-organisation and in all the circumstances does not consider the
options are unfair.
The Court therefore recommends that the members of the Union
choose from amongst the options on offer.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87966 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11619
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: POWERS SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
(QUINNSWORTH)
and
IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS,
GROCERS AND ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed redundancies of 5 workers
employed as audit clerks.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates approximately 74 grocery retail
supermarkets nationwide. In recent years the Company employed 25
stocktakers in 2 audit teams one operating out of Dublin and the
other operating out of Cork. The purpose of the audit teams was
to carry out stocktaking audits and related duties throughout the
Company's branches.
3. The Dublin audit team consisted of 15 members who were
represented by the Union involved in this dispute. The Cork audit
team consisted of 10 workers represented by the Irish Distributive
and Administrative Trade Union (I.D.A.T.U.).
4. In August, 1987, the Company informed both Unions that the
audit teams were being disbanded and that stock control duties
would be carried out at local level. The Company also outlined
its proposed redundancy payments of 4 weeks pay per year of
service plus statutory lump sums.
5. The offer was confirmed in writing the day following the
meeting to each individual member of the audit team. There were
no acceptances of the terms.
6. Both Unions were opposed to the proposed redundancies and
sought to have the notice of redundancy rescinded and to enter
into negotiation on restructuring the audit teams with the minimum
of job losses.
7. Following further meetings the Company amended the proposed
redundancy offer to include average overtime pay and an amount in
respect of travel and overnight expenses in the non-statutory
element of the package.
8. The revised lump sums were accepted by 7 out of the 10 audit
clerks in Cork. One worker was transferred as a sales assistant
to a Cork branch and the remaining 2 workers (the existing
supervisor and his deputy) were selected for and accepted 2 new
stocktaker positions.
9. The Company subsequently met with the Union and offered
similar redundancy terms to those accepted by the Cork team. The
offer was again sent in writing to each member of the Dublin team.
There were no acceptances.
10. A further meeting was held on 9th December, 1987 at which the
Company offered transfers to branches as sales assistants for up
to 6 members of the audit team and indicated that any compensation
for loss of earnings would be negotiated with the Union. The
redundancy terms on offer were also confirmed.
11. Another meeting between the parties followed on 14th
December, 1987. The Company offered the possibility of selection
for 2 new promotional 'stock takers' positions, payment in lieu of
notice to be made available to those members accepting redundancy
terms and that the rate used in the lump sum calculations would be
increased by 3% in lieu of a 27th round increase. The Union
issued the Company with strike notice to expire on 18th December,
1987.
12. In the course of 16th and 17th December 10 of the 15 members
of the Dublin audit team approached Management and accepted the
redundancy terms which were slightly modified to include a figure
for "guaranteed overtime".
13. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 17th December, 1987, and the proposed industrial
action was called off. A conciliation conference was held on 22nd
December, 1987.
14. At the conciliation conference the Company confirmed the
options available to the 5 remaining workers as follows -
(a) Transfer to a branch as sales assistant in
accordance with Terms and Conditions applicable to
branch staffs. Compensation for loss of rate to be
negotiated with the Union.
(b) Accept similar redundancy terms to those already
accepted by 10 members of the Dublin Team.
(c) Apply for consideration for selection for one of
the two new promotional "Stocktaker" appointments
which are due to be made. The decision as to
suitability to rest with Management.
The Union and the 5 Audit Team members who were present at the
Conciliation Conference, were advised that the individuals
concerned would be invited to attend for interview to discuss
their position. They were also advised that if they choose not to
attend for interview as requested, that redundancy notices would
be issued. This was confirmed in writing to each of the
individuals concerned by letter dated 24th December, 1987.
15. These options did not meet the Union's aspirations. The
Union considered that the Company should be able to accommodate
the 5 remaining workers in an audit/clerical role within the
Company.
16. Both parties agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
4th January, 1988. The Court's recommendation was issued to the
parties by letter on 5th January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
17. 1. The actual function of auditing itself is not being
disbanded, only current personnel. There will be a new
"Rebuilt" Management selected audit team which they intend to
take stock with stores staff. Therefore, the job function
itself is not, and will not be, redundant and therefore the
Union believes that no redundancy situation exists. The
proposed redundancies are cosmetic and contrary to the spirit
of the Redundancy Acts and the Protection of Employment Act.
2. The cost of auditing cannot be taken in total isolation
from the overall performance of the Company, which is
excellent. The Company has never tried to justify its
contention on the high costs of auditing by producing its
accounts.
3. The fact that the Company terms auditing as a non trading
cost is not a sufficient reason for redundancy, particularly
when the workers see vast sums of money being spent by the
Company on advertising, bingos, ocean cruises, sponsoring the
Dublin City Marathon and a free glossy magazine for
customers.
4. It should be possible for a Company which employs 5,000
workers to redeploy five employees to suitable audit/clerical
grades subject to negotiation.
5. It is refreshing that these workers are now prepared to
ignore the "lump sum" and refuse to "sell" their jobs. If it
were not so easy for Irish Management to create redundancies
there would be far less on the dole. At a time when there is
in excess of 250,000 unemployed, the stance of these workers
is all the more significant.
6. The Company's offer of six sales assistants' jobs for
audit team members is totally unacceptable. This is not
comparing like with like, quite apart from the differences in
wages and conditions, one has to remember that the nature of
the audit clerks' work makes them quite unpopular at local
Branch level.
7. The Union has been attempting since April 1987 to force
the Company around a negotiating table to discuss
restructuring of the audit team by agreement. The Company
has consistently ignored the Union and gone its own way - by
using "cosmetic redundancies" de facto restructuring the
audit team to suit itself without the "interference" of
Union/Members, but, at the loss of thirty jobs and
livelihoods.
8. At this stage the Union/Company have no agreement for
store staff to carry out audits, and the workers are still
being instructed accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
18. 1. The Company's decision to disband the audit teams was
made in the best interests of the organisation as a whole.
The cost of operating the audit teams was very high and could
not be substantiated in to-day's business climate. It was
and is essential that the Company find a satisfactory
alternative stocktake procedure with a lower cost.
2. None of the Company's competitors operate audit teams as
described above. Custom and practice in the retail trade is
for shop staffs to carry-out stocktaking, this was the
practice in Quinnsworth before the audit teams were
established and the practice was continued concurrent with
the operation of the audit teams. The disbandment of the
audit teams simply brings stocktaking practice fully into
line with other Supermarket groups. To prevent the Company
making this change, would be to put Quinnsworth at a
competitive disadvantage to other Companies in the
supermarket trade.
3. In disbanding the audit teams, the Company made great
efforts to ensure that individuals would have the best
possible range of options to choose from. The options
offered to the 5 remaining audit teams members allow each
individual to decide whether they wish to receive a generous
severance payment and leave the employment of the Company or
to remain in the Company's employment by transferring to
branch staff and receive compensation for any loss of
earnings which might arise.
4. The redundancy severance package offered by the Company
is generous by standards both in the supermarket trade and
external to it (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
19. The Court accepts that this is a case of redundancy due to
re-organisation and in all the circumstances does not consider the
options are unfair.
The Court therefore recommends that the members of the Union
choose from amongst the options on offer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th January, 1988 John M. Horgan
M.D./P.W. Chairman