Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92346 Case Number: LCR13876 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NATIONAL INDUSTRI (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
A dispute concerning the redundancy of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Given all of the circumstances of this dispute the Court
considers that the period of notice of redundancy should be
instituted by the issue of a new period of notice from a current
date. During this period of notice the complainant should not be
required to attend work.
The above should be accepted in full and final settlement of the
issue. The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92346 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13876
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
PARTIES: NATIONAL INDUSTRI (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the redundancy of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of power
transformers and employs in the region of 136 workers. For at
least 10 years the Company has been suffering losses due to severe
trading difficulties. In January, 1992, it was taken over by a
multi-national company which introduced a rescue plan which
involved major reorganisation and rationalisation. As a result of
this plan the supervisory structure which had existed within the
Company was changed. This factor coupled with the phasing-out of
the lamination-cutting area, over which the worker concerned was
foreman, resulted in the worker being included among the 13
workers being made redundant throughout the Company (7 of these
workers were members of the A.T.G.W.U.).
During his period of notice, which was due to expire on 13th
April, 1992, the worker received an alternative offer of
employment from the Company. The position concerned was that of
production operative on the shop floor. The worker's pay and
conditions would be red-circled. The Company stated that its
offer was subject to the agreement and co-operation of another
union which is representative of operative grades. When this
agreement was not forthcoming, the Company re-issued redundancy
notice to the worker on 15th April, 1992 to expire on 10th June,
1992. On 16th April, the Union wrote to the Company requesting
that the redundancy notice be withdrawn. The Company refused and
the Union issued strike notice. The dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission and the
strike was deferred. A conciliation conference was held on 13th
May, 1992, at which no agreement was reached. The issue was
referred to the Labour Court on 11th June, 1992, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has the longest service with the
Company and as such should be the last person to be chosen for
redundancy. He is only seven years away from retirement and
wishes to retire on a full pension.
2. By offering to deploy the worker and subsequently
retracting this offer the Company is discriminating against
the worker. The position originally offered must still exist
as the only problem which arose concerning it was the
objection of the other Union to the job being filled by the
worker.
3. The worker also applied for the position of Production
Manager. Three such positions were advertised by the Company.
The Union contends that it was never its understanding that
failure to secure one of these posts would result in
redundancy. If this had been the case, the Union would have
insisted that the positions be filled on a seniority basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the necessary re-organisation which has taken place
within the Company, the position of foreman, which the worker
concerned held, no longer exists.
2. The Company had hoped to redeploy the worker on a
red-circle basis but could not do so without the other union's
agreement. Such a move would have required the worker to join
this other union and would have resulted in the loss of his
Union seniority. (He had been a member of A.T.G.W.U. for 3
years). No definite offer was ever made to the worker as this
could not be done without the co-operation and agreement of
the other union.
3. The redundancy package available to the worker (details
supplied to the Court) is very fair and favourable. Any
attempt to change it could have a knock-on effect on the other
workers who had been made redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Given all of the circumstances of this dispute the Court
considers that the period of notice of redundancy should be
instituted by the issue of a new period of notice from a current
date. During this period of notice the complainant should not be
required to attend work.
The above should be accepted in full and final settlement of the
issue. The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________
30th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
A.NiS./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.