LCR12273

Subject:
Application of the voluntary redundancy scheme.

Recommendation:
5. As the agreement between the Board and the Trade Unions for
Voluntary Redundancy provides that the acceptance of any request
is at the sole discretion of management the Court does not
recommend that this claimant's request must be accepted.

Nevertheless the Court recommends that management re-examine this
request in the light of the full submission made by the claimant
to the Court.

Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD8947 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12273

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)


PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
and
A WORKER


SUBJECT:
1. Application of the voluntary redundancy scheme.

BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed at the Board's head office since
February, 1979. Initially he worked in the Ledger Section of the
Accounts Department. Since June 1980 he has been Section Head in
the Pensions Section of the Personnel Department. In May, 1988
the Board put a voluntary redundancy package on offer. It
continues to be on offer to all staff with the exception of
typing/secretarial grades. Up to mid January 1989 a total of
1,480 applications for the package were received of which 1,201
were approved. On 13th December, 1988 the worker here concerned
applied to the Managing Director for the voluntary redundancy
package. In a letter dated 6th January, 1989, the Managing
Director stated that the Board could not accede to his request
since approval of his application would require the appointment of
a replacement. On 9th January, the worker again wrote to the
Managing Director requesting that his application be reconsidered
and stating that he considered the reason given for not approving
his application to be discriminatory. The worker subsequently
made arrangements to have the matter investigated by a Rights
Commissioner and on 19th January sought the Managing Director's
agreement to such an investigation. On 23rd January, 1989 the
Deputy Chief Executive confirmed to the worker that he would not
be granted the voluntary redundancy package and also that the
Board would not agree to a Rights Commissioner's hearing on the
matter. On 24th January, 1989, the worker referred the matter to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 2nd February, 1989.
Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.

WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker finds the reason given by the Board for
rejecting his application for voluntary redundancy to be
discriminatory and untenable.

2. It is questionable whether the worker needs to be
replaced in view of the fact that the pension schemes
membership will reduce from 4,000 to 1,100 over the next four
years, bringing about a reduction in the volume of work. In
addition, the expansion of computerisation may well mean that
the job will no longer exist at some time in the future.

3. If the worker does require to be replaced, a replacement
could be obtained from within Bord na Mona. There are no
special qualifications required to do the job. There are a
number of employees who are better qualified than the claimant
was when he took up the position, who would be willing to fill
the vacancy.

4. Several employees who have been granted the voluntary
redundancy package have been or are about to be replaced.
(Details supplied to the Court).

5. The worker knows of only two employees other than
himself whose applications for voluntary redundancy have been
refused. One was a qualified Management Accountant and the
other a qualified Systems Analyst/Programmer. These
applications were refused because of the qualifications
required for the job.

6. The Board's current 5-Year Plan states that "Bord na
Mona must be staffed leanly with careful monitoring of
expenditure". Given this plan it seems inconsistent that the
Board has endeavoured to achieve reductions in staff numbers
by paying off the most costly age group first i.e. over 60s
(details supplied). All of these would have retired in the
normal course of events by 1993 at no cost to the Board. The
claimant is aged 37.

7. The claimant considers that the cost involved in
granting him the voluntary redundancy package i.e. #14,000 is
low given that he has been a diligent and conscientious
employee for ten years.

BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant's application for the redundancy package
was given the same consideration as was given to all other
applicants' bearing in mind the date of its receipt and the
operational requirements at the time. While the Board's 5
Year Plan, of which the claimant is fully aware, envisages
further reductions in staffing levels, these reductions cannot
be implemented until the technological and organisational
changes are in place.

2. There is no redundancy in the section in which the
claimant is employed nor is there likely to be redundancy in
that section in the foreseeable future.

3. The scheme as negotiated with the Unions in May 1988
stated:
"The following Redundancy/Early Retirement Scheme is available
to all employees subject to the acceptance of any request for
the package being at the sole discretion of Management taking
account of operational needs."

4. In a letter to all employees dated 13th may, 1988, the
Personnel Manager stated:
"Should the number opting for the Voluntary Redundancy/Early
Retirement Package exceed the number of reductions needed, the
operational requirements of the Board will be taken into
account in making the selection, which will be at the
discretion of management".

5. The Board does not consider that it could easily find a
replacement to fill the claimant's position should he be
allowed to leave.

6. The claimant is not the only employee whose application
for voluntary redundancy has been refused. To date 1,201
applications out of a total 1,480 have been approved.

7. Given all the circumstances, the Board considers that
the decision not to accede to the claimant's request for
voluntary redundancy was the only one possible.

RECOMMENDATION:

5. As the agreement between the Board and the Trade Unions for
Voluntary Redundancy provides that the acceptance of any request
is at the sole discretion of management the Court does not
recommend that this claimant's request must be accepted.

Nevertheless the Court recommends that management re-examine this
request in the light of the full submission made by the claimant
to the Court.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
-----------------
10th February, 1989
A.K./U.S. Chairman