Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92277 Case Number: LCR13660 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CLERYS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding redundancies of porters.
Recommendation:
5. In the case before the Court the Company have sought to
achieve savings by way of redundancies in the portering
department. It appears to the Court that given the current level
of unemployment and the extreme difficulty and hardship to workers
in the present climate seeking employment every effort should be
made to maintain employment and only as a last option should
redundancy be used as a means to achieve savings. It is fully
accepted that current commercial realities require that companies
operate in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible
if they are to remain competitive.
It is imperative therefore that in this case both parties seek to
achieve the necessary cost savings as a matter of urgency.
To this end the Court recommends that the parties discuss all
available cost reduction options including redundancy and savings
in overtime and that they complete their negotiations within two
months of the date of this recommendation.
In the event that agreement is not achieved the Court will review
the situation and make a recommendation on the matter.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92277 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13660
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CLERYS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding redundancies of porters.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company, which is engaged in the retail business,
employs 260 workers. In addition there are 165 workers
employed with a range of concession operators in the store.
In January, 1992, the Company informed the workers that it
wanted to effect savings of #100,000 in the portering area
through a combination of redundancies and savings on overtime.
The Company offered the workers redundancy payments of #350
per year of service, up to a maximum of #20,000. This was in
accordance with a previous voluntary redundancy arrangement
made in 1983. There were no volunteers for this offer.
2. A meeting between the Company and the Union took place on
25th February, 1992. The meeting addressed a number of
items but no progress was made on the issue of redundancy.
The Company issued redundancy notices (RP1 forms) to the 10
most junior workers on 11th March, 1992. On 13th March, 1992,
the Union informed the Company that the workers had voted
unanimously to take strike action if the Company imposed
redundancy on a compulsory basis. No progress was made at a
further meeting between the parties on 25th March, 1992. It
was decided to refer the dispute to the Labour Relations
Commission. The Company agreed to defer issuing the RP2's
until 1st May, 1992.
3. Three conciliation conferences were held on 28th, 29th
April and 1st May, 1992. At conciliation, the Company
increased its offer of redundancy terms to 3 weeks' average
earnings per year of service but maintained the ceiling of
#20,000. Only one volunteer came forward and in an attempt to
secure a final settlement, the Industrial Relations officer
(I.R.O.) put the following to both sides.
"(i) 4 further redundancies from among the portering
staff, including 2 named workers. These to be
achieved by voluntary means, in the first
instance.
(ii) If insufficient volunteers have come forward by
Wednesday 6th May, 1992 at 12.00 noon, it is the
Company's intention to implement the balance on a
last-in first-out basis, as is normal in such
situations.
(iii) Terms to be as previously outlined but with a
minimum payment of #10,000 and a maximum of
#30,000. These figures to be inclusive of
statutory entitlements (excluding Holiday Pay).
(iv) These proposals are made on the basis of avoiding
a dispute. They are unique to this situation and
create no precedent for any other or future
situation with this or any other group of workers.
If rejected by either side they have no status and
are deemed withdrawn".
4. There were no further volunteers arising from the I.R.O.'s
proposals. The Company is seeking to implement the
redundancies on a last in first out basis. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 11th May, 1992. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 15th May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the past 10 years the numbers employed by the Company
have declined from 750 to 260 workers. In the same period the
decline in the services area, has been from 100 to 30 workers.
The Union has co-operated with the Company in reducing numbers
by voluntary means. In this case, the Company is seeking to
introduce redundancy on a compulsory basis. This is being
resisted by the workers who are trying to save their jobs in a
profitable company. The Company has recently embarked on a
programme of recarpeting and also carpeting areas which were
not previously covered. The Company has not explained who
will carry out the extra work after the workers are made
redundant.
2. In an effort to satisfy the Company's aspirations for a
reduction in staffing levels, the Union has indicated that
(i) Two cleaners have expressed an interest in the
redundancy package.
(ii) One of the porters has sought redeployment to another
area.
(iii) A worker, currently out ill, has also expressed an
interest in the package.
The alternative proposals by the Union have been rejected by
the Company.
3. The last 2 national agreements were accepted by Trade
Unions in an effort to create employment. The workers have
accepted low percentage increases to protect and expand their
employment. The Company is in breach of the spirit of these
agreements in the light of the healthy trading position of the
Company. This has recently been acknowledged by the Chief
Executive (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has sought staff and overtime reductions
because of its trading position (details supplied). Over the
years, as a result of its trading position, the number of
workers employed has been reduced substantially. The number
of redundancies in the portering section has been
substantially lower than redundancies in other sections. The
Company's business is seasonal and in this context, there are
too many permanent porters employed.
2. The Company is not in a position to consider the
alternative proposals suggested by the Union (details
supplied). To date, there has been 2 meetings at local level
and 3 conciliation conferences. The proposals were first made
in January, 1992. Since then the number of redundancies
required has been reduced from 10 to 5 and the payments on
offer have been substantially increased. In return, the
Company has achieved only one voluntary redundancy.
3. The Union has threatened industrial action in the event of
the Company introducing the required redundancies on a
compulsory basis. The Company has been mindful of the impact
that a dispute would have on the workers and the future
viability of the Company. However, the Company has now
exhausted the voluntary option within reasonable cost
parameters. The Company must now implement 4 redundancies on
a last-in first-out basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the case before the Court the Company have sought to
achieve savings by way of redundancies in the portering
department. It appears to the Court that given the current level
of unemployment and the extreme difficulty and hardship to workers
in the present climate seeking employment every effort should be
made to maintain employment and only as a last option should
redundancy be used as a means to achieve savings. It is fully
accepted that current commercial realities require that companies
operate in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible
if they are to remain competitive.
It is imperative therefore that in this case both parties seek to
achieve the necessary cost savings as a matter of urgency.
To this end the Court recommends that the parties discuss all
available cost reduction options including redundancy and savings
in overtime and that they complete their negotiations within two
months of the date of this recommendation.
In the event that agreement is not achieved the Court will review
the situation and make a recommendation on the matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
22nd May, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.