Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89504 Case Number: LCR12502 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Closure of the Company's in-house garage.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions the Court is not satisfied
that adequate negotiations have taken place between the parties.
In the interests of resolving the issue on an amicable basis the
Court recommends that the parties should re-convene at local level
with the objective of affording to each party an opportunity of
elaborating its views on the issue.
In the event of these negotiations not concluding in agreement the
issue should be referred back direct to the Court who will arrange
a further early hearing.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89504 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12502
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD PLC
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Closure of the Company's in-house garage.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was taken over in 1988. It lost the Carlsberg
franchise in June of that year. As Carlsberg sales accounted for
over forty per cent of the Brewery's business, the Company drew up
a survival plan to ensure its future. One aspect of this plan was
the closure of the Company's fleet maintenance garage with the
consequential loss of jobs. The Company, at a meeting in April,
1989, advised the Union of the redundancy package on offer. At a
further meeting on 12th July, 1989, the Company outlined details
of its new fleet and stated that any additional requirements would
be hired on a lease and contract basis. The Company also advised
that Redundancy forms (R.P.I.'s) would issue to garage staff on
28th July, 1989 and as and from that date the servicing of
existing fleet would be on a contract maintenance basis.
Following discussions with the Union the Company rescinded this
decision and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 19th July, 1989. No
agreement being reached, the Company requested a full Labour Court
hearing. The Union agreed and the Court investigated the dispute
in Cork on 2nd August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is accepted that change is necessary and inevitable.
The Union is prepared to consider proposals to reduce costs.
2. None of the garage workers are interested in redundancy.
The possibility of redeployment within the Brewery (Boiler
House) or being redeployed to the outside garage who will have
the Company contract, should be considered.
3. The garage is the only department inside or outside the
Brewery to face closure. It is clear that the Company have
not looked at or for alternative options.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The decision to close the garage, which is an irrevocable
one, has been forced on the Company following a major change
in its fortunes arising from the loss of the Carlsberg
franchise. Sales of Carlsberg represented in excess of forty
per cent of the Company's business.
2. Because of the loss of business, the size of fleet has to
be reduced. The Company, from its present resources, cannot
provide the capital to purchase a replacement fleet, but in
order to provide the best possible service, the replacement
fleet will be on a leased contract basis and this will include
maintenance.
3. There will not be a requirement for garage maintenance
services in the future. The Company recognises that this is
an unfortunate position for the men employed in the garage but
it has provided a generous redundancy/severance package.
4. Union Representatives have stated that they are anxious
for the Company to succeed. Each element of the survival plan
is an integral part of the whole programme for the future
success of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions the Court is not satisfied
that adequate negotiations have taken place between the parties.
In the interests of resolving the issue on an amicable basis the
Court recommends that the parties should re-convene at local level
with the objective of affording to each party an opportunity of
elaborating its views on the issue.
In the event of these negotiations not concluding in agreement the
issue should be referred back direct to the Court who will arrange
a further early hearing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
__8th__August, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
A.McG./J.C.