Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90146 Case Number: LCR12799 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROADSTONE DUBLIN LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;NATIONAL UNION OF SHEET METAL WORKERS OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning a Company proposal to close its garage at Fortunestown, Tallaght and to re-locate the staff employed there to other locations.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is of the view that the Company's proposal to close the Garage at
Fortunestown and to relocate the workers concerned in various
other locations is not unreasonable. The Court is sympathetic to
the expressed fears of the workers as to the security of their
employment should they agree to relocate. The Court, therefore,
whilst recommending acceptance of the Company's proposal does so
subject to prior discussions with the Union on the conditions,
including job security, on which they would transfer.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90146 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12799
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROADSTONE DUBLIN LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
NATIONAL UNION OF SHEET METAL WORKERS OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a Company proposal to close its garage at
Fortunestown, Tallaght and to re-locate the staff employed there
to other locations.
BACKGROUND:
2. The garage at Fortunestown was established in 1979 to service
the machinery on the south side of the City and to maintain the
fleet located there. The Garage was previously located at
Baldonnel and prior to 1971 in Bluebell.
3. On the 23rd November, 1989 the Company informed the Union that
it was closing the garage at Fortunestown and the workers employed
there were to be relocated to other plants and quarries within the
Company. The Company stated that it was no longer able to
maintain the garage as a viable operation and that the facility
and capacity exists at other locations to carry out the work
required. The Unions object to the closure on the grounds that
decentralisation will not lead to greater efficiency or savings
for the Company.
4. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 22nd December, 1989. A conciliation conference
was held on 9th February, 1990. As no agreement was reached the
parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
28th March, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers concerned fear for their jobs as they fail to
see how dividing the work will lead to greater efficiency.
The Company's fleet of lorries will still be based at
Fortunestown. The Company in recent times, have been using
contractors to carry out work of a routine nature contrary to
agreement.
2. The Union has identified a number of inefficiencies i.e.
no transport for obtaining spare parts, inadequate stores and
no cleaning staff. The Union is prepared to discuss with the
Company ways of eliminating these inefficiencies.
3. At the conciliation conference Management's right to
manage was identified as an issue. The Union accepts that
management must manage but are concerned with the Company's
motives. The Company has refused all efforts to identify
where costs were excessive and offers to assist in cost
reduction.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. There are adequate facilities at the locations to carry
out the work. This will eliminate duplication of facilities.
The Location Manager is in the best position to decide on the
priority of the maintenance work to be done. Carrying out the
work at location will reduce the time that the plant is not
working. It will eliminate transporting the plant between the
locations and the garage.
2. The time taken and cost of carrying out the work at the
garage is excessive and does not compare with similar
commercial operations (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company is not declaring the employees redundant. In
relocating the employees the Company has attempted to minimise
the hardship involved taking into account the particular
requirements of each location.
4. The Company must use the resources it has in the most
efficient and effective manner possible in order to remain
competitive.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is of the view that the Company's proposal to close the Garage at
Fortunestown and to relocate the workers concerned in various
other locations is not unreasonable. The Court is sympathetic to
the expressed fears of the workers as to the security of their
employment should they agree to relocate. The Court, therefore,
whilst recommending acceptance of the Company's proposal does so
subject to prior discussions with the Union on the conditions,
including job security, on which they would transfer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
_________________________
Evelyn Owens
April, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.