Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90696 Case Number: LCR13127 Section / Act: S67 Parties: B.P. OIL (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the redundancy terms available to a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is satisfied that there is merit in the Union's case and
accordingly recommends concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90696 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13127
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: B.P. OIL (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the redundancy terms available to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed in the Company for
eleven years. He was originally a member of the operative staff
in Dublin until 1988 when a major reorganisation took place
involving voluntary redundancies. The worker's job was also
becoming redundant. There was a vacancy for a Depot
Superintendent in Limerick for which the worker successfully
applied. He was appointed on 1st October, 1988. The Company paid
relocation expenses. However, earlier this year Management
announced its intention of closing the Limerick terminal. This
was due to the fact that the Company's source of product at
Limerick has been withdrawn and distribution facilities would have
to be relocated to Cork and Galway. The worker concerned was
offered an alternative position in Dublin (on which several
discussions took place) or a severance package which the Company
claims is applicable to white collar workers. This would consist
of 6 weeks pay per year of service (to a maximum of 2 years pay)
together with 4 months pay in lieu of notice. Another company has
a vacancy in the Limerick area which the worker is considering.
The Union is claiming that the job offered in Dublin has not been
clearly defined and that the conditions attaching to any such job
would have to be sufficient to compensate for the worker's
increased costs in moving back to Dublin. The Union claims that
the worker should be offered the same redundancy terms as were
offered to workers located in Dublin Airport who were recently
made redundant. This would consist of 8 weeks pay plus 6 months
in lieu of notice up to a maximum of 3 years. Agreement on the
issue could not be reached at local level and on 18th September,
1990 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 18th
November, 1990 at which no progress was made and on 29th November,
1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 7th
December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When management announced its intention of closing the
Limerick terminal, the worker expressed a strong preference
for staying with the Company if that was possible and
practical. Management to date have only offered one
alternative position, as the manager of a Company operated
service station in Dublin. The worker's requirement that this
position should be clearly defined and that the conditions
should be sufficient to compensate for his increased costs
(mostly mortgage) in moving back to Dublin were never met. In
fact management confirmed that the whole concept of this job
was being re-examined. This left only the redundancy option
open. While the worker became aware that another B.P. group
company was interested in appointing a suitable agent in the
Limerick area, he has been unable to give a commitment on this
because there has been no agreement on the severance package.
2. The 1988 re-organisation resulted in job losses in both
the operative and administrative grades and the same severance
package was made available to both groups. Earlier this year
workers in Dublin Airport, who were made redundant because the
"depot" was being closed, were given 8 weeks per year of
service (maximum 3 years pay) and in most cases were fixed up
with contracts or jobs in other companies. For some reason
management is not treating this worker equally. Company's
argument that the job offer in Dublin is reasonable
alternative employment is illogical. It is in a different
location, in a totally different discipline and management
acknowledges that they are not sure what they want from it, or
even if they require such a job. This worker co-operated with
management in moving to Limerick in 1988 and is now losing his
job and should not also be treated less favourably than other
workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker moved to Limerick in 1988 the Company did
not envisage that it would need to relocate distribution
facilities to Cork and Galway. Several discussions have taken
place with the worker regarding an alternative position in
Rathfarnham in Dublin. The salary applicable would be the
same as the Limerick salary which incorporates a payment for
hours outside of normal core hours and relocation expenses
would be the same as those that applied when he moved to
Limerick (details supplied to the Court). The Company's view
is that there is suitable alternative employment for the
worker within the Company and he is not required to avail of
the redundancy option. The Company has also advised the
worker that it would investigate another employment
opportunity in Dublin if he was interested.
2. The terms of the severance package available to the worker
if he opts for redundancy, are very generous terms by any
standard. These are the terms that have been agreed and
applied to all white collar redundancies in the Company. The
Union's claim that the blue collar severance agreement at
Dublin Airport should apply is not valid. Dublin Airport blue
collar staff negotiate separately from both the remaining blue
collar workers and from white collar workers. They also have
different terms and conditions of employment to all other
staff categories. There is no reason why the worker should
receive severance terms over and above those applied to his
white collar colleagues. As the Company is not willing to
augment the redundancy package for the worker, he should avail
of either of the alternate employment opportunities which the
Company considers suitable for him.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is satisfied that there is merit in the Union's case and
accordingly recommends concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
17th December, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.