Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/92/56 Case Number: LCR13573 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MOTOKOV (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - UNION OF MOTOR TRADE, TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES |
Dispute concerning the selection of a worker for redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
difficulty which the position presents to the Union, the Court
considers that the longer term security of individual workers is
best protected by the selection for redundancy on a departmental
basis coupled with length of service in the Company. The Court
does not consider that the Company can reasonably be expected to
accept an offer of voluntary redundancy from a higher-graded
employee whose main work is not directly affected.
In the circumstances, the Court does not find grounds to uphold
the Union claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9256 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13573
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MOTOKOV (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the selection of a worker for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the distribution of tyres and
agricultural machinery. In 1991, due to financial difficulties,
Management implemented a rationalisation plan and a number of
redundancies took place on a phased basis. Selection was by way
of seniority on a departmental basis together with length of
service in the Company. Subsequently the Company required one
redundancy in the stores area and, as there were no volunteers,
Management selected the worker concerned and served him with
notice of redundancy on the 11th November, 1991. The Union
contested the redundancy on the grounds that the worker concerned
was more senior than another worker in the stores area and should
not have been selected. The Union also claimed there was a
volunteer for redundancy in the stores area (the assistant to the
stores manager). Management rejected the Union's claim. The
issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the 19th
November, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th
December, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The matter was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 20th January, 1992. The Court investigated the dispute on the
19th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the departure of a worker from the stores
department in July, 1991 the then assistant to the parts
manager was demoted and became involved in ordinary stores
work. The move was disputed by other storemen but following
Union intervention the issue was resolved and the worker
commenced his new duties. Subsequently when the Company
required a further redundancy in the stores area, the
particular worker volunteered but was refused by Management on
the grounds that he was assistant to the parts manager and
that the post was not being made redundant. The Union
contends that any of the other storemen, including the worker
concerned, with a little training, could undertake the duties
of assistant to the stores manager. The worker who has
volunteered for redundancy should be declared redundant.
2. The worker concerned has been unfairly selected for
redundancy as he is not the last worker to be employed in the
parts department (details supplied to the Court). The
practice of workers being dismissed and more senior colleagues
being demoted to do the work of these employees is
unacceptable to the Union, particularly as the more senior
colleague in this instance is anxious to avail of the
redundancy package. The Company has not given a satisfactory
explanation for refusing the worker's application for
redundancy. The Union asks the Court to recommend that the
threat of dismissal be removed from the worker concerned, and
that Management enter into discussions on the volunteer's
application for redundancy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company did not demote the assistant to the parts
manager to the position of storeman. He was involved in other
duties for a while (details supplied to the Court). He then
reverted to his former duties which included some supervision
of storemens' work. The position of assistant to the parts
manager is a key position in the Company and there is no
question of the post being made redundant. The Company cannot
accept that worker's voluntary application. The Company does
not accept the Union's claim that other storemen (including
the worker concerned) are suitably qualified for the post of
assistant to the parts manager. The particular storemen do
not have the level of experience and expertise of the present
incumbent.
2. The redundancy of the worker concerned is vital to the
Company and is still urgently required. The situation in
relation to sales in the present year is worse than 1991
(details supplied to the Court). The Company has selected all
applicants for redundancy firstly on a departmental basis and
secondly on length of service with the Company. The Company
had to choose between three storemen and as there were no
volunteers, and operating on this criteria, the worker
concerned was selected. The Company cannot accept the
application of the assistant to the parts manager for
redundancy. He is not a storeman. He has considerable
experience and his position is vital to the running of the
stores. The Company has taken on a new product and the supply
of parts for that product. These parts will be dispatched
directly to the dealer and will not be handled by stores.
They will necessitate an increased role for the assistant to
the parts manager, not extra work for the storemen. The
Company has acted in a fair and reasonable manner in selecting
the worker concerned for redundancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
difficulty which the position presents to the Union, the Court
considers that the longer term security of individual workers is
best protected by the selection for redundancy on a departmental
basis coupled with length of service in the Company. The Court
does not consider that the Company can reasonably be expected to
accept an offer of voluntary redundancy from a higher-graded
employee whose main work is not directly affected.
In the circumstances, the Court does not find grounds to uphold
the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________________
6th March, 1992. Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.