Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8895 Case Number: LCR11854 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PEAK ELECTRONICS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Downgrading of four workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is of the opinion that the employment of the workers directly
concerned at lower grade in itself contravenes the terms of the
Union Company Agreement. The Court, in light of information
supplied that the jobs carrying the higher grade were surplus at
least for the period of the current downturn in business is of the
opinion that continued part-time employment, even at a lower grade
is preferable to redundancy in the circumstances, and on the
assumption that the workers concerned will be eligible for
re-grading as soon as improved trading warrants, recommends that
they accept the terms offered by the employer.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8895 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11854
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PEAK ELECTRONICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Downgrading of four workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Local level meetings were held in January, 1988 at which the
Company stated that due to trading difficulties it intended
placing all its hourly paid workers on a three day week with
effect from 1st February, 1988. The Company also stated that four
other workers would have to be downgraded (with lower pay) or
would have the option of redundancy on a statutory basis only, as
their positions would no longer be retained. The four workers
concerned are: 1 stores assistant grade 1; 2 inspectors; and 1
machine operator. This downgrading was unacceptable to the Union,
however the workers concerned accepted downgrading on 29th
January, 1988 under protest pending investigation of the issue.
On 29th January, 1988 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 3rd February, 1988 at which agreement could not be reached and
on 8th February, 1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 12th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company had no right to reduce the wages of the
workers under the threat of forced redundancy. The Company
are in breach of sections 18 and 19 of the Company/Union House
Agreement as they did not process the issue through the agreed
procedures (details supplied to the Court). Under Section 18
- Procedures in the event of Lay-off or Redundancy, no
consideration was given to length of service when redundancy
was threatened. Under Section 19 - Grievance and Dispute
Procedures, a reduction in wages imposed by the methods used
by management is most certainly a grievance.
3. 2. Some of the work which was previously carried out by these
workers is in fact now being done by other workers in the
Company. The wages and conditions of employment of the
workers have been negotiated between the Union and the Company
and no changes should be made without mutual agreement. These
workers previous rates of pay should be restored immediately
with retrospective effect.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers understand that the Company has been in a loss
making situation since 1987 and is experiencing serious
trading difficulties at present, as is indicated by the three
day week now in operation. Despite this no permanent workers
have lost their jobs. In the circumstances, the Company had
to cut all unnecessary costs. Therefore the positions of the
four workers became redundant.
2. The future survival of the Company depends on full
co-operation being given by all its workers. The only basis
on which the Company could offer these four workers continued
employment with the Company was on the basis that they would
accept grade basic rate positions at the appropriate rate.
The Company believes this to be a preferable option to
redundancy on a statutory basis only.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is of the opinion that the employment of the workers directly
concerned at lower grade in itself contravenes the terms of the
Union Company Agreement. The Court, in light of information
supplied that the jobs carrying the higher grade were surplus at
least for the period of the current downturn in business is of the
opinion that continued part-time employment, even at a lower grade
is preferable to redundancy in the circumstances, and on the
assumption that the workers concerned will be eligible for
re-grading as soon as improved trading warrants, recommends that
they accept the terms offered by the employer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___13th___May,____1988. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman