Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90612 Case Number: LCR13070 Section / Act: S67 Parties: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's rationalisation proposals for clerical staff.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion, particularly having regard to the fact that the Company
has in fact achieved the required reduction in staff numbers, that
the Union's proposals on staff redeployment should be instituted
on a trial basis of six months and reviewed by both parties
thereafter in the light of experience of those terms in operation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90612 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13070
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's rationalisation proposals for
clerical staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company in February, 1990 announced that due to a number
of adverse trading factors it required savings. The Company
decided to obtain these savings through a reduction in staff
numbers and sought approximately thirty redundancies in total
throughout the Company. The proposed redundancies included one
general administrative position and three clerical positions (one
permanent position and two temporary positions). Since that
announcement for various reasons two general administrative
positions and one permanent clerical position have been vacated.
In order to achieve the proposed reductions in staffing the
Company proposed a re-organisation of workload and duties which
included the re-deployment of a "seconded worker," who was
seconded to a holding company in 1987. Following his redeployment
it is proposed that his former duties in the holding company would
be taken over by the staff there, the major part to be taken over
by the present office manager. It was also proposed to relocate
two workers to the two temporary clerical positions. The Union
considered these proposals and proposed that the re-organisation
proposals would be worked on a trial basis on condition that one
temporary worker was retained and the "seconded worker" would not
be redeployed. The Company rejected these proposals and as no
agreement was reached at local level the matter was referred on
12th September, 1990 to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 19th September, 1990
at which no agreement was reached and the matter was referred on
25th October, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The
hearing took place on 30th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has adopted a most pragmatic, reasonable, and
co-operative response to the Company's rationalisation
proposal. It has accepted three job losses and given
flexibility which puts the remaining staff under considerable
pressure. As the Company has achieved its desired savings on
three posts it should retain one temporary staff worker.
2. The "seconded worker" was promoted into a position in a
holding company in 1987. The Company is now seeking to demote
him in order to place a member of middle management. The fact
that the post was on secondment was to ensure that the
seconded worker retained his seniority rights within the
Company. The Company may not now demote him and he should
retain his promotional post.
3. The Union has offered a fair compromise to resolve the
dispute. It is prepared to co-operate in changing working
arrangements on a trial basis with the retention of one
temporary worker and the retention of the seconded worker of
his position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company strategy in selecting redundancies has been
dictated by the knowledge that it is out of line with its
competitors in the area of indirect fixed costs and all
positions selected fall into this category and will result in
a permanent reduction in the fixed cost base. It is
imperative that the Company's proposals be implemented
immediately.
2. The Company is satisfied that its proposals will work
efficiently and should at least be given a trial. The
relocation of staff, increased computerisation, and more
efficient procedures will operate satisfactorily without any
unacceptable increase in workload for the staff. The most
critical elements in the Company's proposals is the relocation
of staff which should be accepted by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion, particularly having regard to the fact that the Company
has in fact achieved the required reduction in staff numbers, that
the Union's proposals on staff redeployment should be instituted
on a trial basis of six months and reviewed by both parties
thereafter in the light of experience of those terms in operation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
13th November, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.