Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88314 Case Number: LCR11899 Section / Act: S67 Parties: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Union objection to a worker being made redundant and the manner of selection for redundancy.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the Institute is not acting
unreasonably in this particular instance, in selecting the
claimant for redundancy.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88314 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11899
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Union objection to a worker being made redundant and the
manner of selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Rehabilitation Institute operates a number of training
units at their Sligo centre, including a concrete products unit
which also manufactures wooden pallets. Because of the fall in
demand for concrete products the Institute proposes closing the
concrete product unit and transferring the manufacture of wooden
pallets to the engineering unit.
3. The Institute proposes to make the supervisor of the concrete
products unit redundant at terms previously applied in another
centre (2½ weeks pay per year of service and statutory). The
Union contends that no redundancy is necessary at Sligo. However,
it contends that if a redundancy is insisted upon, it should be
done on a last in first out basis. Such an arrangement would
exclude the worker involved in the current dispute from selection
for redundancy. Agreement could not be reached on the issue at
local level, and on 10th March, 1988, the matter was referred to
the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 20th April, 1988. Agreement was not
reached, and on 27th April, 1988, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 19th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In support of its proposed closure of the concrete
section and its proposal to make the supervisor redundant, the
Institute contends that the concrete pallets unit did not
achieve budget this year. The Union contends that the unit
did no worse than five of the six Sligo units last year which,
according to the employer, failed to fulfil their budgets and
the staff have not been consulted about budgets anyway.
4. 2. Approximately two thirds of last year's turnover in the
concrete/pallets unit was in respect of pallets. Total sales
in the pallet section were only £5,000 short of budget
(details supplied to the Court). If management were committed
to improving the pallet sales, a viable pallet unit could be
established without too much difficulty, thereby obviating the
need for redundancy. In the event that management are unable
or unwilling to follow that course, the pallets should, in the
view of the Union, be moved not to the engineering unit as the
employer proposes but to the much more appropriate general
industries unit. Irrespective of the future of pallet making
at the Institute, the Union is challenging the redundancy of
the particular individual concerned. On the basis of the
fundamental Union principle of last in first out, this is not
the appropriate person to be chosen for redundancy.
3. Many Union members employed by the Institute in Sligo
and in other parts of the country are concerned with the
changing emphasis of the organisation. It seems to many of
the workers that in recent years the Rehabilitation Institute
has become more and more production and profit orientated and
less and less concerned with the welfare and rehabilitation of
their trainees.
4. The Union also notes that at a time when the Institute
is proposing to make staff redundant, there appears to be no
shortage of money for a whole range of other projects.
Amongst those are the establishment of new Rehabilitation
Centres which sometimes compete in the same region with
products similar to those being produced in existing centres.
5. The Union requests the Court to reject redundancy as a
solution to this dispute and to at least uphold the policy and
practice of last in first out.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is the Institute's practice to monitor closely the
performance of units in each of its centres, with a view to
ensuring that each unit operates in a viable manner, offering
the highest quality and range of training. The monitoring
process has taken place over a number of years at the Sligo
Centre and it became very apparent that the concrete products
unit required particular attention. This unit has repeatedly
performed below its budgeted sales level, the number of
trainees engaged in the activity have decreased, and the
number of placements into employment have been minimal
(details supplied to the Court).
5. 2. The concrete products unit was unable to sustain the
minimum viability criterion for such units. One requirement
is that gross margin must be adequate to cover staff salaries
(in this case that of the Unit Supervisor). This particular
unit has been unable to generate adequate sales to comply with
this requirement. Management accepts the Unit Supervisor's
view that the bottom has fallen out of the Construction
Industry market and, despite his best efforts, no more could
be done. The manufacture of pallets was introduced to the
concrete products unit in March, 1987 to help raise the level
of sales until such time as a hoped for upturn in the market
materialised. Pallet-making is a small scale local activity
normally incorporated into the general industrial units and
not concrete products. The two activities combined failed to
reach minimum viability criterion and hence the decision to
close the unit. Similar situations have arisen in the past
throughout the Institute's other training centres and when
units closed, the Unit Supervisors of those units have been
declared redundant. The Union is fully aware of these
situations.
4. Initially, the Union argued that no redundancy should
take place and, irrespective of need, cost, staff-trainee
ratios etc., all staff should retain their jobs and funds
designated for other purposes should be diverted to secure
this end. Such a position is untenable and the Institute is
not prepared to arrange its affairs on this basis. The Union
subsequently suggested that staff in other units could be
displaced in order to secure this worker's employment. This
approach could not operate in the circumstances or in any
other centre and would be very unfair to staff operating in
other units where minimum criteria have been met. The
implications of such an approach for morale and performance
would be very serious.
5. The selection criterion and the terms offered in this
redundancy are consistent with policy. In all the
circumstances, the Court is respectfully requested to uphold
the Institute's position.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the Institute is not acting
unreasonably in this particular instance, in selecting the
claimant for redundancy.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
13th June, 1988 --------------------
P.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman