Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90702 Case Number: LCR13200 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CASHEL TEXTILES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning redundancy terms.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
is of the view that the Company should pay the workers made
redundant, two weeks pay per year of service exclusive of
statutory entitlements.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90702 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13200
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CASHEL TEXTILES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is owned by a Dutch holding company and has
sister companies at Thurles and Rathdowney. The Cashel plant
provides a dyeing service for raw materials and finished products
produced by the two sister companies. In recent years
fluctuations in trade have necessitated short-time working and job
losses throughout the group. The Cashel plant has operated
short-time working periodically since 1986 and most recently from
1990 to date. There are eleven production workers employed at
Cashel, some with up to 22 years service. In September, 1990 the
Company informed the Union that a re-organisation at Cashel is
necessary as capacity far exceeds present and foreseen demand. The
Company proposed that 3 full-time jobs be maintained at Cashel and
offered statutory redundancy terms for the other 8 workers which
it proposed to make redundant. The Union rejected the Company's
proposals and as no agreement could be reached on the issue the
matter was referred, on 16th October, 1990, to the Conciliation
Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 1st November, 1990 at which no agreement was reached and the
matter was referred on 3rd December, 1990 to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The hearing took place on 7th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union does not accept the need for the level of
redundancies proposed by the Company. The Company is really
proposing a rationalisation to increase profitability and
efficiency. The jobs of some of the workers are not
redundant but are being re-allocated to others within the
Company. Some of the work is being transferred to other
plants thereby affording more efficiency. It is wrong that
the 8 workers concerned should lose their jobs when their
work still exists.
2. As the Company is insisting on redundancies substantial
compensation must be awarded to those forced to leave their
jobs. Some of the workers have over 20 years service with
the Company (details supplied to the Court) and have
co-operated with high levels of productivity and flexibility
required by the Company in the past. They should not be made
redundant without reasonable compensation. The workers are
prepared to enter into industrial dispute with the Company if
they are not satisfied with redundancy terms.
3. The Company has profited well, over the years, from the
efforts of the workers but has refused to disclose
information to the Union on it's financial state. The
Company can afford to make fair and reasonable redundancy
payments in recognition of the contribution of the workers
concerned.
4. The Company has made proposals at the full Court hearing
regarding the selection mechanism for the proposed
redundancies and the retention of a fourth full-time job.
The Union has had no prior knowledge of these proposals and
has not discussed them with the Company.
5. The Company is treating the workers most unfairly in
this situation. It should pay redundancy terms commensurate
with those generally paid in the area (details supplied to
the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The difficulties in the market place coupled with the
cumulative losses within the group in general and the
uneconomic operation at Cashel has made rationalisation
necessary. The present capacity on a three-day week far
exceeds demand which is not likely to increase in the
foreseeable future. It is clear that without the adoption of
the Company's survival plan the future of all the jobs at
Cashel is in jeopardy.
2. The Company has reviewed the operation of the Cashel
plan and is satisfied that the maintenance of 3 full-time
jobs is entirely workable given the throughput which can be
anticipated. The retention of a reduced workforce with 5-day
week working will provide customers with an improved level of
service.
3. The precedent for redundancy payments within the Company
has always been at the level of statutory redundancy only.
Any alteration in the level of payment will have repercussive
effects. The Company would prefer to increase the number of
full-time jobs by one rather to increase redundancy terms, on
the basis that statutory redundancy is acceptable to the
other seven workers concerned. The fourth job would be that
of a flexible production worker/maintenance fitter.
4. Of the 3 full-time workers to be retained under the
original proposal the Company requires the services of only
one dyer. The other 2 positions would be applied for by the
remaining suitably qualified staff. It is proposed that
last-in, first-out will operate in the event of compulsory
redundancies.
5. It is not the Company's intention to transfer operations
from Cashel to existing factory space at a sister plant. The
dyeing facility will remain at Cashel for the foreseeable
future and there is little prospect, due to considerable
financial and technical difficulties, that it will move.
6. The Company has been considerate and compassionate in
its approach to the workers in the past. Despite the very
low level of orders the Company has maintained the workforce
at its current level over extended periods of short-time
working. The financial resources of the Company should be
used to secure jobs and growth rather than for the payment of
ex-gratia severance sums to workers in excess of their
statutory redundancy entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
is of the view that the Company should pay the workers made
redundant, two weeks pay per year of service exclusive of
statutory entitlements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th February, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Chairman