Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93351 Case Number: LCR14168 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BAILEY GIBSON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning selection for redundancy and the redundancy terms for 2 office staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes the Company have been seeking to reduce costs
by effecting a redundancy and a short time working situation.
In discussion, the parties subject to acceptable compensation,
have agreed a proposal for a change in the manning level which
will provide enhanced savings above those originally sought by the
Company.
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that, the
severance terms be increased to 3 weeks per year of service for
the employees concerned.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93351 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14168
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BAILEY GIBSON LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning selection for redundancy and the redundancy
terms for 2 office staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is part of the Clondalkin Paper Mills Group
and is involved in the folding carton business. It employs 68
workers. The Company is making a loss and has developed a
Survival Plan which includes, inter-alia, investment,
re-organisation and redundancies. The plan involves 22
redundancies affecting all departments. To date, 14 workers
have been made redundant and 5 redundancies are under
negotiation, not including the 2 proposed clerical
redundancies. All redundancies to date have been on the basis
of 2 weeks' pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory
entitlements.
2. The 2 clerical redundancies in dispute are in the finance
department which employs 3 clerical workers and a
receptionist. The Union rejected the redundancy terms and the
method of selection used by the Company. Local meetings made
no progress and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission.
3. A conciliation conference was held on 25th May, 1993. The
Company claimed that it was not in a position to increase the
terms on offer because of its financial position. The workers
in question had 15 and 7 years' service respectively. No
compromise was possible and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 4th June, 1993. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 23rd June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 19th April, 1993 the Company advised the workforce that
it wanted to make one worker redundant and to put another on
short-time. It offered 2 weeks' pay per year of service as
its "standard" redundancy terms. The Company received no
volunteers and sought to impose a redundancy and short-time
working on the workers. The workers are not convinced that a
redundancy situation exists as the Company recently employed a
new worker in a position which the workers feel that they
could fill.
2. The Company eventually sought 2 redundancies on a last-in,
first-out basis. The 2 junior workers were prepared to
consider redundancy as an option if the Company divided
between them the amount of money it would have paid had the 2
most senior workers opted for redundancy. The Company
rejected this proposal. The Union is in a difficult position
as there is no agreed redundancy package and the Company
refuses to negotiate one. The Union also disputes the fact
that the redundancies are confined to the finance function and
not offered on a voluntary basis to other clerical workers.
The Company is part of the Clondalkin Group which is highly
profitable and the redundancies are being sought as part of a
rationalisation programme to enhance the profits of the Group.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company agreed to the Union's request for 2
redundancies but cannot agree to improved terms. The
implementation of its Survival Plan necessitates severe
rationalisation and a dramatic increase in productivity for
those who remain. The decrease in work means that 2 workers
can comfortably cope with the clerical workload. The
Company's economic situation obliges it to make the savings
immediately.
2. Every redundancy in the Company has been paid for on the
Company's standard terms which were established in 1991. They
were formally agreed by S.I.P.T.U. (another branch) as part of
a resolution of a strike in 1992 and subsequently ratified by
the Labour Court in November, 1992. The Company has made
losses in 1991, 1992 and to date in 1993 (details supplied).
The Company must secure the redundancies and it has no
financial resources to concede improved terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes the Company have been seeking to reduce costs
by effecting a redundancy and a short time working situation.
In discussion, the parties subject to acceptable compensation,
have agreed a proposal for a change in the manning level which
will provide enhanced savings above those originally sought by the
Company.
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that, the
severance terms be increased to 3 weeks per year of service for
the employees concerned.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
11th August, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.