Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91370 Case Number: LCR13582 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THOMPSON ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning selection procedures for redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions and recommends that, in a
redundancy situation, the need for the retention of employees with
key skills and expertise should be accepted and subject to this,
redundancy should be based on seniority. The agreement should
include a clause reflecting the above.
With regard to the selection of employees in a lay-off situation
the Union should be consulted in advance and employees selected on
the basis of the type of work available, the skills required to
carry out the work and seniority.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91370 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13582
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: THOMPSON ENGINEERING LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning selection procedures for
redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. Some workers were made redundant by the Company in 1989. The
matter went to the Labour Court. The Court in Recommendation No.
L.C.R. 12605, stated:
"In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the Court is
of the opinion that the principle of seniority should apply
for the choice of redundancy but in this instance since the
men concerned have in effect left voluntarily, the present
position should stand. The Court recommends that the parties
should negotiate provisions for future redundancies which
will incorporate such further objective criteria as are
needed to allow the firm to do the work available in an
efficient and competitive manner".
The Company and Union are currently negotiating a new works
agreement. Agreement could not be reached regarding the wording
of Clause 10 which deals with the issue of redundancies.
Conciliation conferences were held on 27th February, 1991, and
23rd May, 1991 but no agreement could be reached. On 17th July,
1991, the Labour Relations Commission referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court investigated the dispute on 4th February, 1992,
(earliest date suitable) in Carlow.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union proposed that the clause covering redundancies
should read as follows:
"Should market conditions impose redundancy on the Company,
the Company will decide upon the number of redundancies
and will consult with the Union before these redundancies
are implemented".
"If, after consultation, agreement cannot be reached on
who shall be made redundant then the matter may go
through procedures, up to and including the Labour Court,
to decide on the redundancies".
2. The Company are opposed to the principle of "last-in first
out", instead preferring to base the choice of worker to be
made redundant on a number of criteria such as skill,
capability, and other criteria. The Union believes that
criteria such as skill, capability etc... should be addressed
during a worker's probation instead of waiting for a
redundancy situation. Other criteria can cover almost
anything. Criteria, such as sick leave should be address
before a redundancy situation arises. These issues should be
addressed through normal procedures. If the Company's
proposals on redundancies are accepted it would enable them to
"deal" with a worker unfairly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company should be able to select workers for
redundancy on the basis of ability, performance, co-operation,
training, conduct and service. The Company requires a number
of different skills and trades and any decision on redundancy
must be on the basis of skills and trades required at the
time. The Company needs flexible arrangements for
redundancies. The Company hopes to agree any selection for
redundancy with the Union. Seniority will be one of the
criteria used in that selection.
2. The Company wishes to be able to retain the best workers.
If there are two workers capable of doing the same job one
might be more able e.g. work quicker to a higher quality
level. If two fitters are compared, one may be the best
skilled in hydraulics whilst the other is the best at fitting
truck bodies. The Company must be able to choose workers on
the basis of whoever is best for the work required.
3. The Union have suggested including lay-offs in the
redundancy clause. This could lead to a situation where no
one could be laid-off until all procedures have been
exhausted. This is impractical in a situation where, with
little notice the Company is short of work. In these
circumstances workers must be laid off at short notice and not
follow exhaustive procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions and recommends that, in a
redundancy situation, the need for the retention of employees with
key skills and expertise should be accepted and subject to this,
redundancy should be based on seniority. The agreement should
include a clause reflecting the above.
With regard to the selection of employees in a lay-off situation
the Union should be consulted in advance and employees selected on
the basis of the type of work available, the skills required to
carry out the work and seniority.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
31st March, 1992. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Brian O'Neill, Court Secretary.