Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92339 Case Number: LCR13738 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH CABLE & WIRE LTD. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning proposed redundancy within the Company.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and noted
that it is accepted by both sides that the need to reduce staff is
related to financial rather than work considerations. The
necessary reduction in staff figures can be achieved by
re-deployment - combined with red circling of pay and service and
the Court considers that the parties should resolve their
difficulties on this basis.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92339 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13738
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH CABLE & WIRE LTD.
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning proposed redundancy within the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of heavy
electrical cables and currently employes 130 workers. In 1991 the
Company was taken over by a large multi-national group resulting
in it competing in a wider market. Due to the need to be
competitive in this market and to the losses suffered by the
Company in 1991 (in the region of #750,000), the parent Company
instructed the Company to make itself as efficient as possible
through the rationalisation of its cost structure. The Company
proposed to achieve this through redundancies and is currently in
the process of reducing staff levels by 26.
The Company proposed to reduce the staff within the laboratory
area by one and has already issued a manufacturing technician with
redundancy notice to be effective by 18th August, 1992. The Union
rejects this proposed redundancy on the grounds that there is no
reduction or planned reduction in the work currently being
performed and therefore no redundancy situation actually exists.
The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Relations Commission on 22nd May, 1992. A conciliation conference
was held on 4th June 1992 at which agreement was not reached. The
issue was referred to the Labour Court on 10th June, 1992 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 17th July, 1992.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposal to make redundant a post of
manufacturing technician while at the same time transferring
the work to a member of the management grades is totally
unacceptable. A redundancy situation cannot exist if all the
work being carried out by the members continues to be
required with no reduction envisaged. The Union strongly
opposes the proposal to transfer work from its members not
only to an outside grade but to a manager with less service
and experience than they have.
2. Prior to this situation all previous redundancies have
been achieved voluntarily but in this case the worker has
been fingered for compulsory redundancy and is the only
person to have been so affected. Moreover this worker has
three times the service of the manager in his area.
3. The Union argues that, taking into consideration the
service of the technical staff in the laboratory, their
expertise and the fact that there is no actual loss of work,
there is no justification for making any of its members
redundant. It feels that if there is a surplus to staff
requirements it is within the management grades and any
problem the Company has should be addressed in this context.
COMPANYS ARGUMENTS
4. 1. In light of the losses suffered by the Company last year
and those projected for 1992 plus the need to prove itself
both cost efficient and suitable for investment, the Company
must implement redundancies. The proposed redundancies have
already affected and are to affect all categories of workers
throughout the Company.
2. The Union cannot dictate to the Company who may or may
not be made redundant. The Company has selected the
particular worker in the laboratory on the basis of the fact
that he has the least service of the three technical staff
also employed within that area. He was also offered
alternative employment within the Company which he refused.
3. The Companys redundancy package was originally on offer
as a voluntary package but on failing to attract volunteers
was made compulsory on the basis of seniority.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and noted
that it is accepted by both sides that the need to reduce staff is
related to financial rather than work considerations. The
necessary reduction in staff figures can be achieved by
re-deployment - combined with red circling of pay and service and
the Court considers that the parties should resolve their
difficulties on this basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th August, 1992 Kevin Heffernan
A.O.S./M.H. -----------------------------
Chairman.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.