Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92436 Case Number: LCR13782 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CLERYS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Clarification of Labour Court Recommendation 13660.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all aspects of the dispute as
outlined by the parties in their oral and written submissions and
recommends as follows:
1. Savings required should be achieved through staff reductions
and reduction in overtime costs.
2. Staff reductions - As has applied in the other sections of the
Company staff reductions should be achieved on the basis of
voluntary redundancy.
3. Guaranteed Overtime - Guaranteed overtime should be eliminated
in such measure as will achieve the required savings and
overtime should be carried out as required at the request of
Management.
Staff should be compensated for the loss of overtime at a rate of
52 times the weekly loss, such compensation to be paid in two
phases on or before the 31st March, 1994. The package of cost
savings in accordance with the above recommendations to be agreed
by 31st October, 1992.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92436 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13782
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. Clarification of Labour Court Recommendation 13660.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by the Company as porters.
In January, 1992 the Company advised the Union that it wished to
implement a rationalisation programme through a combination of
redundancies and reduction in overtime in the portering area. The
issue was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in May, 1992
(L.C.R. 13660 refers). The Court recommended as follows:
"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".
Following numerous meetings between the parties the issue was not
resolved and on the 22nd July, 1992 the F.I.E., on behalf of the
Employer, referred the matter to the Labour Court for a definitive
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th
August, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The cost-saving options proposed by the Company in July,
1992 were: (1) elimination of guaranteed overtime (2)
job-sharing (3) lay-off (4) redundancy. The Union's main
concern is to save jobs and it has put forward a number of
alternative proposals in the course of several meetings with
the Company. These have included the extension of a
redundancy option to other workers who may wish to avail
themselves of it, and redeployment. The Union is willing to
discuss the curtailment of overtime, provided the question of
redundancy and lay-off is not included. The Company must,
however, compensate the workers concerned for loss of
guaranteed overtime. It has been part of their working
conditions for many years and their standards of living are
based on basic pay plus overtime. The Union's claim is for a
payment of three times the annual loss.
2. The numbers in the portering area have been reduced from
23 to 18 (approximate 25%), this compares very favourably with
reductions in other departments. The number of porters cannot
be reduced further. At the present time, with workers on sick
leave and annual leave, there are instances of other grades
doing work appropriate to porters (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The Company is to open a store in Tallaght in the near
future and there will be a number of vacancies at that outlet.
Management should consider redeployment or alternatively to
fill vacancies left at the O'Connell Street branch by workers
moving to Tallaght.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has refused to consider, other than overtime,
the Company's options for cost savings. The Company cannot
achieve the necessary level of cost savings on the overtime
issue because of the Union's compensation claim for three
times the annual loss. This is entirely unrealistic and
unacceptable. The elimination of overtime on this basis would
yield savings of #80,000 while costing #240,000 in
compensation.
2. The Company has sustained a trading loss in the first part
of 1992. This highlights the urgent need for cost savings.
Wage costs are currently 26% of turnover. This is an
unacceptable level when judged against any reasonable criteria
within the retail sector. Turnover in 1991/92 is down by one
third on the previous decade's figures.
3. The Company is not prepared to redeploy staff to Tallaght.
It proposes to recruit staff for this branch locally and there
will be no requirement for portering staff in that branch in
any case. The Company is of the opinion that the only method
to achieve the necessary cost savings is by way of
redundancies. It has identified four redundancies on a last
in first out basis which would save approximately #60,000 p.a.
at a cost of approximately #50,000. Management must secure
these savings in order to secure the future of the Company and
all its staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered all aspects of the dispute as
outlined by the parties in their oral and written submissions and
recommends as follows:
1. Savings required should be achieved through staff reductions
and reduction in overtime costs.
2. Staff reductions - As has applied in the other sections of the
Company staff reductions should be achieved on the basis of
voluntary redundancy.
3. Guaranteed Overtime - Guaranteed overtime should be eliminated
in such measure as will achieve the required savings and
overtime should be carried out as required at the request of
Management.
Staff should be compensated for the loss of overtime at a rate of
52 times the weekly loss, such compensation to be paid in two
phases on or before the 31st March, 1994. The package of cost
savings in accordance with the above recommendations to be agreed
by 31st October, 1992.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
15th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.