Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89693 Case Number: LCR12605 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THOMPSON ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 15 workers concerning selection procedures for lay-off/redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the Court is
of the opinion that the principle of seniority should apply for
the choice of redundancy but in this instance since the men
concerned have in effect left voluntarily, the present position
should stand.
The Court recommends that the parties should negotiate provisions
for future redundancies which will incorporate such further
objective criteria as are needed to allow the firm to do the work
available in an efficient and competitive manner.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89693 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12605
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THOMPSON ENGINEERING LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 15 workers concerning
selection procedures for lay-off/redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates two distinct divisions, one doing
structural steelwork and another doing body work for tipper
trucks. Both divisions are directly related to the construction
industry, upon which the Company relies for business. A lack of
business in the body work division has forced the Company to make
six workers in that division redundant. The parties, however,
disagree on the method of selection for redundancy. The Union
insists that selection should be strictly on the basis of
seniority. The Company maintain that such a policy would
undermine the Company. The Company wishes to select on the basis
of the method in use in the construction industry i.e. using
criteria including ability, performance, training, conduct and
service. As agreement could not be reached locally the matter was
referred on 22nd September, 1989, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 26th September, 1989, and the dispute was
referred on 9th October, 1989 to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 13th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The service of the workers concerned is of short duration
(details supplied to the Court) and selection for redundancy
should have been on the basis of last in, first out
(L.I.F.O.). The L.I.F.O. method is generally accepted
throughout the engineering industry.
2. It is normal for a probationary period of six months to
apply when workers commence employment. Those who would have
been covered under a six month probationary period should have
been the workers initially chosen for redundancy. The Company
have chosen to retain a worker with approximately six months
service and let go someone with fifteen months service.
3. The Union also believes that some of the workers could
have been transferred to the structural steelwork division of
the Company for a temporary period to see if the situation in
the body work division improved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is faced with a situation where it does not
have sufficient work in its body workers division to provide
employment for al its employees. The Company envisages
transferring some work from the structural steel division, and
has selected employees for that type of work on the basis of
ability, performance, co-operation training conduct and
service. On this basis, it leaves six workers for whom the
Company has no work.
2. The Company's business is related to the construction
industry and as it is based upon the customer accepting the
Company's tenders for particular jobs, there are peaks and
troughs in the workload, requiring varying levels of manpower.
For this reason it is essential for the success of the Company
that it can increase or decrease its employment numbers
without having to restrict itself to retaining workers purely
on a service basis. No Company in the construction industry
operates a service only method of selection for redundancy.
3. Neither the unionised or non-unionised competitors in the
bodyworks areas operate a seniority based redundancy selection
method. The Company believes that if it does so, it will give
its competitors an unfair advantage.
4. The Company recognises that selection for redundancy must
be done in a fair and equitable manner and that service should
be considered with the other criteria listed at 4.1. above.
The Company also recognises the fact that employees must feel
a sense of security and that service plays an important part
in this feeling. However, the security of all employees is
totally dependent upon the competitive efficiency of the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the Court is
of the opinion that the principle of seniority should apply for
the choice of redundancy but in this instance since the men
concerned have in effect left voluntarily, the present position
should stand.
The Court recommends that the parties should negotiate provisions
for future redundancies which will incorporate such further
objective criteria as are needed to allow the firm to do the work
available in an efficient and competitive manner.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
19th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.