Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90737 Case Number: LCR13154 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THE REHABILITATION INSTITUTE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning 2 proposed redundancies in the Sligo Centre.
Recommendation:
3. Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking
into account the number of trainees in the Engineering Unit; the
national ratios which are in existence; the merger of the Sligo
office with Galway, the Court considers that the Board's position
is not unreasonable and should be accepted. The Court accordingly
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90737 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13154
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 AND 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THE REHABILITATION INSTITUTE
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning 2 proposed redundancies in the Sligo
Centre.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Institute decided to reorganise its regional offices in
the West and North West. It amalgamated both offices which
resulted in the Regional Office now being located in Galway and
cut backs in Sligo.
3. The Institute proposed making two people redundant, one an
instructor in the Engineering Unit on the grounds that there is
overmanning in that Unit. The activity for which he was employed
i.e. fitting/turning has fallen away over the years. The other
worker was employed as secretary to the Regional Manager. As the
Regional Manager has retired and her duties have now been subsumed
by the Galway office the Institute contends that there is no work
for the secretary consequently her position has become redundant.
The worker was offered alternative employment in another part of
the country but she declined it as she deemed it was unsuitable.
The Institute offered to pay the workers in accordance with the
nationally agreed redundancy package.
4. The Union is objecting to the redundancies on the grounds
that there is still plenty of work in Sligo for the two workers
here concerned. The matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 21st November, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on 20th December, 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 3rd January, 1991. The Court issued its
recommendation by letter dated 15th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is the Union's view that there is more than
sufficient work available for both workers in the Sligo
Centre. In the case of the instructor, he has been working
in the engineering section together with another instructor
over the last number of years. The section includes some
fitting/turning and sheet metal work. Targets in this area
have increased by over 100% over the past five years despite
five of its best trainees being placed in full-time
positions.
2. The work in this area is such that with many of the
orders received one of the instructors has to leave the site
to check specifications etc. In the present situation this
is possible as there is still a trained instructor available
to ensure continuity of work flow and ensure the safety of
trainees.
3. In the case of the secretary the reason given for her
redundancy was the retirement of the Regional Manager.
However, on examination of the duties she performed it can be
seen that her secretarial work only formed a portion of her
overall duties (details supplied to the Court).
4. In 1988 reference was made to change in policy by the
Board highlighting commercialisation by management. Since
that time targets have been set without the sort of input
necessary from supervisors. Lack of consultation on major
changes still exists as does lack of prior consultation when
employment maybe threatened. The Union believes that
redundancy notices should be withdrawn and asks the Court to
recommend accordingly in addition to the parties meeting with
a view to resolving the issue.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The engineering unit opened in Sligo in 1977 offering
vocational training places for 28 trainees in both
fitting/turning and sheet metal work. Unfortunately, the
trainee numbers envisaged never materialised and indeed the
unit supervisor was made redundant in 1984. The worker here
concerned was employed to concentrate on fitting/turning
while his colleague was responsible for sheet metal work.
However, over the years the fitting/turning operation has
fallen away whilst the sheet metal working gained in
predominance resulting in the worker here concerned
concentrating more on this activity.
2. Currently there are 13 trainees in the engineering unit
and there is difficulty in getting more trainees of a
suitable calibre. Consequently there is a need for only one
instructor in this Unit. The ratio recommended by the
National Rehabilitation Board for this type of semi-skilled
activity is 15:1. The Institute cannot justify the retention
of two staff in this Unit.
3. In the case of the other worker she was advised as far
back as May, 1990 of the impending retirement of the regional
manager and the amalgamation of both regional offices. She
was advised that the Institute would look out for suitable
alternative employment. However, a suitable vacancy did not
arise. Over the past number of years the worker also carried
out switchboard/reception duties. This is a situation which
evolved and is peculiar to Sligo. It is the Institute's
intention that these duties be overseen by the Centre's
secretary/bookkeeper with the actual duties to be carried out
by one of the Institute's trainees. There are 20 trainees at
present undertaking a secretarial course.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking
into account the number of trainees in the Engineering Unit; the
national ratios which are in existence; the merger of the Sligo
office with Galway, the Court considers that the Board's position
is not unreasonable and should be accepted. The Court accordingly
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th February, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman