Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89128 Case Number: LCR12392 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union that a worker should be allowed take redundancy rather than be demoted.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
considers that, whilst accepting that there was some confusion as
to the exact position of the claimant at the time the redundancy
package was on offer, he nevertheless accepted re-deployment with
compensation for loss of income on the basis of the agreed
formula. It was only when the terms of that agreement expired
that the question of redundancy was again raised.
In all the circumstances the Court finds no grounds which would
justify recommending to the Company to restore him to Foreman
position, when there is no vacancy or recommending the granting of
redundancy when there is work available.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89128 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a worker should be allowed take
redundancy rather than be demoted.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute was employed as a foreman
in the Company's tile plant and has 28 years' service. The tile
plant ceased production as part of a major re-organisation. The
worker applied to go on the Company's redundancy plan, but his
application would have been turned down because he had less
service than other foremen. The worker agreed to stay on, and was
downgraded to a general operative. This resulted in a loss of
wages of #60 to #70 per week. To offset this, the worker was
compensated with 39 times his weekly loss. In addition to this
the worker believed that he was going to retain his old foreman's
rate of pay on a "red circled" basis. The worker was kept on his
old rate for a number of months, but reverted to the general
operatives rate in June, 1988. On discovering this the worker
applied for redundancy but was turned down. Meeting were held
with the Company at local level, in June and September, but
agreement was not reached. On October 6th 1989 the Company
informed the worker that it was still refusing him redundancy.
The Union referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner on 7th
October, 1988 but the Company declined to attend. The Union then
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 29th November,
1988 and again on 16th December, 1988. No agreement was reached,
and on 20th February, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place in Dublin on 15th March, 1989.
Subsequent to the Court hearing, the Court wrote to the parties
requesting the attendance of a named individual at a resumed
hearing. The parties responded by requesting the Court to make
its recommendation on the basis of the evidence already before it.
The Court agreed to this request.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In March, 1988 when names were being taken for redundancy
the worker was asked by the production manager not to apply
for redundancy but to stay on the pay roll. There was no
mention of a reduction in status from junior foreman to
operative, or of a reduction in wages. If the worker had been
informed in March that his choice was demotion or redundancy,
he would have taken redundancy. It was only in June, 1988
that the Company moved to cut the worker's wages.
2. The workers concerned is almost sixty years of age. He
had 28 years service with the Company, and had an excellent
record over that period. He is now being forced to accept
compulsory demotion from foreman to general operative, and to
suffer the substantial weekly losses which this entails.
There is a drastically reduced workforce in the Company,
coupled with a much changed work regime. The redundancy
package was negotiated specifically for those whose old jobs
were being abolished by the Company.
3. The Company has no financial reason to refuse the worker
his redundancy. It was specifically agreed in the past that
the cost of an individuals package would not be used as a
factor against them. Furthermore, the Company is now doing
very well from a financial viewpoint, and can well afford the
cost of the redundancy (details supplied to the Court). In
all the circumstances, it is felt that the worker has been
unfairly treated, and he should be allowed to avail of the
redundancy package as negotiated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was selected for the position of operative in
good faith and on the clear understanding that only one
foreman position existed under the new operating arrangements.
At an early stage in the dispute, the Company agreed to
release the worker in exchange for another who was scheduled
for redundancy in July, 1988 but who wanted to stay on. This
was conditional on the Union giving an undertaking that the
remaining six selected employees would not use this as a
precedent for further claims. (The group contained two other
former foremen). The Union, following a meeting with its
members, was unable to give such an undertaking.
2. The worker is being treated in a similar manner to another
foreman who is now an operative and who was compensated for
loss of earnings by the same thirty nine weeks formula. The
redundancy agreement negotiated between the Company and the
Union provided for acceptance of the Company's proposed
rationalisation and stated manning levels (details supplied to
the Court).
3. The Company has no requirement for an additional foreman,
and cannot be expected to carry one. Neither do present
manning levels allow for any further redundancies. A
redundancy situation does not exist, as the Company is
currently experiencing an up-turn in market demands, which
could ultimately lead to further employment should present
trends continue. To concede to the worker's request for
redundancy or restoration of status at this time would lead to
a fundamental change in the agreed working arrangements and
pay structure now in place. This would have serious
implications for the Company. The Court is asked to uphold
the Company's position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
considers that, whilst accepting that there was some confusion as
to the exact position of the claimant at the time the redundancy
package was on offer, he nevertheless accepted re-deployment with
compensation for loss of income on the basis of the agreed
formula. It was only when the terms of that agreement expired
that the question of redundancy was again raised.
In all the circumstances the Court finds no grounds which would
justify recommending to the Company to restore him to Foreman
position, when there is no vacancy or recommending the granting of
redundancy when there is work available.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
15th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.