Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9039 Case Number: LCR12991 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TYNA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning: (i) Selection for redundancy/lay-off. (ii) Compassionate Leave.
Recommendation:
9. The Court having given careful consideration to the oral and
written submissions of the parties recommends as follows:-
(a) Selection for Redundancy
The Court notes the need of Management to have available to
it the necessary skill and performance in circumstances of
lay-off and redundancy and consequently upholds the right of
management to take these into account in conjunction with the
length of service in such circumstances. This prerogative of
management carries with it the obligation to ensure that all
members of the workforce are given the necessary
opportunities to acquire the required skills and performance
so that staff accordingly will have equitable treatment. The
Court however considers it would not be appropriate that
factors such as lateness, absenteeism or conduct should be
taken into account; these should be matters dealt with
through the normal disciplinary procedures of the Company.
(b) Compassionate Leave
Having regard to the provisions of the Programme for National
Recovery the Court does not recommend concession of this
claim at this time. The Court has noted the Company's
commitment to deal with this claim at the expiry of the
Programme for National Recovery. The Court would recommend
that the approach of the Company in any discussions at that
time should be a positive one.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9039 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12991
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TYNA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:
(i) Selection for redundancy/lay-off.
(ii) Compassionate Leave.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of knitwear in
Monasterevin and employs approximately fifty five workers. The
claims were discussed at local level and at a conciliation
conference held on the 7th December, 1989. As no agreement was
reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th
January, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Monasterevin on the
12th June, 1990 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
Claim 1 - Selection for Redundancy/Lay-Off
BACKGROUND:
3. In the event of redundancies occurring in the Company,
Management takes into account the following criteria in the
selection process:- late attendance record, absenteeism general
conduct, work performance, skill. This procedure is also adopted
in respect of lay-off situations. The Union claims that the
Company's method is unfair and that selection for
redundancy/lay-off should be on the basis of seniority i.e. "last
in first out." Management has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management believes that it has the absolute right to
decide on who will be made redundant or laid off without any
regard for service within the Company. This system is not
acceptable to the Union. The normal procedure in industry is
the last-in-first-out principle based on service.
2. The Company refers to an out dated agreement as the basis
for their right to make redundancies/lay-offs. This agreement
has not been updated for fifteen years despite Union attempts
to do so. Natural justice must prevail in this issue. In the
event of a dispute over unfair selection for redundancy the
Union will refer the matter to the Employment Appeals
Tribunal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The existing procedures were agreed in 1976 and have
continued in force since that date. They were designed in
such a way as to have regard to fairness and equity in
selection terms and to the practical and efficient running
needs of the business. The procedures, in relation to
redundancies, have not as yet been used by virtue of the fact
that until recently the Company has never had to impose
redundancy on any worker.
2. To concede the Union's claim for "last in first out"
selection would effectively ignore the running needs of the
business. The Company employs a number of different
categories of worker including knitters, machinists, pressers,
packers, checkers, maintenance etc. In the event of a
requirement to implement redundancies and the Union's method
of selection being adopted, the Company could lose essential
skills in areas that might not be affected by such
redundancies.
3. Equally if the Company had a requirement for a number of
redundancies and had to maintain a smaller operation it would
be vital that those remaining had the essential skills
necessary, were consistent attenders at work and had good
records of conduct and performance. Such criteria would be
absolutely essential in maintaining an efficient operation.
In relation to lay-offs the same arguments are valid.
Claim 2 - Compassionate Leave:
BACKGROUND:
6. Under the terms of the existing Company/Union agreement
"Employees are entitled to three days compassionate leave on the
birth of a child, death of a close relative, special occasions.
No remuneration will be given." The Union is claiming three days
paid compassionate leave for workers on the death of a next of
kin. Management has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company must be one of the few companies in the
country that does not have some form of compassionate leave
agreement. It is unacceptable in 1990, when a worker suffers
a bereavement of next of kin that he/she is deprived of
earnings from work.
2. The form of compassionate leave agreement required by the
Union is presently in operation in numerous other companies
(details supplied to the Court). Despite efforts by the Union
to get such an agreement there has been no response from the
Company. The Union is seeking the implementation of an
agreement on compassionate leave from the expiry date of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company rejects the claim for paid compassionate leave
on the basis that the P.N.R. clearly provides for no cost
increasing claims and should therefore be adhered to.
2. The Company has been in a serious loss-making situation
for some time due to a fall off in trade and is currently
instituting a survival plan in an attempt to turn around the
business and return to profitability.
3. The Company is, however, prepared to meet the Union to
further discuss this claim at the expiry of the P.N.R. which
takes place in December, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court having given careful consideration to the oral and
written submissions of the parties recommends as follows:-
(a) Selection for Redundancy
The Court notes the need of Management to have available to
it the necessary skill and performance in circumstances of
lay-off and redundancy and consequently upholds the right of
management to take these into account in conjunction with the
length of service in such circumstances. This prerogative of
management carries with it the obligation to ensure that all
members of the workforce are given the necessary
opportunities to acquire the required skills and performance
so that staff accordingly will have equitable treatment. The
Court however considers it would not be appropriate that
factors such as lateness, absenteeism or conduct should be
taken into account; these should be matters dealt with
through the normal disciplinary procedures of the Company.
(b) Compassionate Leave
Having regard to the provisions of the Programme for National
Recovery the Court does not recommend concession of this
claim at this time. The Court has noted the Company's
commitment to deal with this claim at the expiry of the
Programme for National Recovery. The Court would recommend
that the approach of the Company in any discussions at that
time should be a positive one.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___24th___August,___1990. ___________________
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman