Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87845 Case Number: LCR11724 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH INDUSTRIAL GASES - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
The implementation of one redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the terms of the agreement reached at the
conciliation conference in February, 1987, and having regard to
the Company's undertaking in relation to safety given at the Court
hearing, the Court recommends that the Company's proposal be
accepted and implemented.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87845 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11724
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH INDUSTRIAL GASES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The implementation of one redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1986, the Company gave details to the Union of a
major rationalisation plan which it proposed to implement. The
plan required 25 redundancies by 31st January, 1987. Following
difficulty in reaching agreement, the matter was the subject of a
series of Labour Court conciliation conferences in February, 1987.
These culminated in an agreement which provided for attainment of
the 25 redundancies prior to 31st July, 1987. On that date 23
redundancies had been achieved. A further redundancy was
subsequently agreed. The current issue is the Company's proposal
to implement one redundancy (a general operative) at the Cork
plant. The current manning is five, two working 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.,
two working 1 p.m. to 9 p.m. and one on full time day work. The
Company now proposes that one man commence work at 8 a.m., one at
11 a.m. and one at noon. A fourth will continue on full time day
work and the fifth position will be eliminated. One of the five
general operatives has applied for, and been successful in
obtaining, a vacant driving position within the Company so no
worker would actually have to leave the Company. The Union is not
prepared to accept this redundancy, arguing that a reduction in
manning is unsafe. The matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 22nd September, 1987 and a
conciliation conference was held on 5th November, 1987. No
agreement being reached, the matter was referred to a full hearing
of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 10th February,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is very concerned about the implications this
redundancy could have for safety in the plant. The workers
are engaged in handling a dangerous substance and a reduction
in manning is not feasible as it may place lives in danger.
2. The workers have been accepting of the need for cost
effectiveness. However, the Company has placed too great an
emphasis on the achievement of the terms of the 1986
rationalisation plan. Since 1979 33 people have left the
Company, the workload remarks high and maximum flexibility has
been given.
3. Both this Company and the British Oxygen Group to which it
is affiliated are currently in a healthy financial situation
with record earnings and demand for products and services
increasing.
4. Given its concern with regard to employment and safety at
work, the financial position of the Company and the
rationalisation already implemented, the Union is opposed to
this redundancy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement reached at conciliation in February, 1987
provided for the attainment of 25 redundancies prior to 31st
July, 1987. To date 24 redundancies have been obtained.
2. The Company strongly refutes the contention that the
proposed reduction in manning in any way affects the safety of
its employees. The Company complies with the highest
international engineering safety standards. The standard of
safety will not fall as a result of implementing one
redundancy. The need for cost reductions does not affect the
Company's absolute commitment to safety.
3. The position concerned is redundant. The individual who
holds the position has accepted a driving position which means
that he will remain with the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the terms of the agreement reached at the
conciliation conference in February, 1987, and having regard to
the Company's undertaking in relation to safety given at the Court
hearing, the Court recommends that the Company's proposal be
accepted and implemented.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
1st March, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.