Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89236 Case Number: LCR12359 Section / Act: S67 Parties: A.C. NIELSEN OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning a proposed rationalisation and redundancy plan.
Recommendation:
8. The Court has considered the submissons made by the parties
and the information subsequently submitted by the Company. It
takes the view that the terms offered for voluntary redundancy are
not unreasonable by general standards prevailing in industry and
recommends that those workers who might be wishing to take such
terms particularly if adopted or amended to meet their particular
circumstances, should make their interest known through their
Union representative. When the level of voluntary redundancy is
thereby ascertained the parties should examine how the new working
proposals of the Company should be adopted to provide for
continued employment for those workers willing to remain.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89236 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12359
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: A.C. NIELSEN OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a proposed rationalisation and redundancy
plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a marketing research organisation. It employs
77 staff in total, 41 of whom are employed at its head office.
Two Managers, 26 full-time field auditors and 8 part-time
stocktakers work nationwide.
3. The Company, in February, 1989 put forward proposals to
rationalise its Irish operation. The proposals affected its field
staff mostly. These workers carry out monthly bi-monthly and
quarterly stock and purchase counts in retail outlets. The field
staff is to be made redundant in June, 1989, 6 of these staff will
be offered alternative full-time employment, and the remainder
will be offered part-time work.
4. The Union considered these proposals, rejected them and put
forward their own proposals which provided for an element of
short-time working so as the jobs of the workers concerned would
be retained. They would also agree to part-time workers being
hired when required. The Company rejected these proposals as they
were not as cost effective as its own plan.
5. A further meeting took place between the parties and I.C.T.U.
in March, 1989. As no progress was possible the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 15th
March, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on 23rd March,
1989. As no agreement was possible both parties subsequently
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 7th April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In December, 1987 the Union were given assurances, as part
of an agreement to allow the introduction of part-time
workers, that there would be no job losses among the field
staff (details supplied to the Court). The workers concerned
have never objected to any new work methods which would allow
the Company to operate more efficiently and they have in fact
being very flexible in the past.
2. The main argument put forward by the Company in
introducing its new proposals is the need for a schedule to
meet customer demands. It is the Union's contention that its
proposals would achieve this objective. The generation of
more revenue is the responsibility of management. The Union
believes that the more efficient revised schedule will
generate more revenue. Consequently there would be no
significant increase in costs to the Company.
3. The Union is concerned that the Company has not indicated
any willingness to negotiate meaningfully with it and are
forcing it into a position where a serious strike will shortly
take place. Many of the field auditors have long service with
the Company and have given their best years to the Company.
Pension expectations will be gone for the majority, as will
their careers. The Union believes that the proposal to do
away entirely with full time auditors is unique in the
Company; certainly in the U.K. they do employ full time
people.
Therefore the Court is asked to recommend:
(1) The retention of full time field auditors on contracts of
employment.
(2) Revision of the Company's plan to accommodate them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company must have the right to determine and implement
changes in its method of operations, which it feels is in the
best interest of the business. The rationalisation of the
Company's field force operations is a Management decision
based on customer needs and sound financial and economic
reasons (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company carefully considered the employees counter
proposals and made available all the necessary resources to
enable the staff to put forward their plan. After costing the
alternative plan, the Company found the employees proposals
operationally and financially unacceptable.
3. Given its serious position, the Company is anxious to
reach agreement, and to proceed with its plan. The Company is
prepared to make generous severance payments to its redundant
employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court has considered the submissons made by the parties
and the information subsequently submitted by the Company. It
takes the view that the terms offered for voluntary redundancy are
not unreasonable by general standards prevailing in industry and
recommends that those workers who might be wishing to take such
terms particularly if adopted or amended to meet their particular
circumstances, should make their interest known through their
Union representative. When the level of voluntary redundancy is
thereby ascertained the parties should examine how the new working
proposals of the Company should be adopted to provide for
continued employment for those workers willing to remain.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
20th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.