Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93562 Case Number: LCR14267 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: INDUSTRIAL YARNS BRAY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for redundancy terms for a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find that
a case has been made by the Union that a redundancy situation
existed in respect of supervisory staff. Accordingly the Court
does not concede the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93562 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14267
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: INDUSTRIAL YARNS BRAY LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for redundancy terms for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Company since January,
1959. In November, 1990, he was transferred from his position of
supervisor on shift-work to day-work in the Packing/Inspection
department. In March, 1993, the worker was transferred back to
shift-work. The Union claims that the worker's position in the
Packing/Inspection department no longer exists and that the
Company is obliged to offer the worker an enhanced redundancy
package. The Company claims that the worker has not been made
redundant. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission for investigation by an Industrial Relations Officer.
A conciliation conference regarding the worker's transfer took
place on the 6th of July, 1993.
Agreement was not reached on the matter. On the 28th of July, the
Union wrote to the Commission redefining the reason for its
dispute with the Company as being "the Company's refusal to
negotiate satisfactory redundancy terms" for the worker.
The Company declined an invitation to attend a further
conciliation conference as it considered that a redundancy
situation did not exist. The Union referred the dispute to the
Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The dispute was investigated by the Court on
the 4th of November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When of the worker was transferred to shift-work, a
junior supervisor was transferred to an operative post. The
Company now employs one less supervisor. Therefore, a
redundancy situation exists.
2. Given the worker's age and service, he should not be
expected to revert to shift-work or to perform duties of a
heavy physical nature. (i.e. lifting weights and
'creeling'). As supervisor in the Packing/Inspection
department, he was not involved in physical work.
3. The worker's colleague who remained in the
Packing/Inspection department is junior in service and
therefore should have been selected for redundancy first.
4. The Company can afford to meet its obligation to the
worker by offering him an enhanced redundancy package. As
the redundancy affects only one position, the overall
implication for the Company is minimal.
5. The case is unique and would not be used by the Union as
a precedent in future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All workers are employed by the Company on the basis
that they must be available for shift-work if and when
required. In November, 1990, the worker was appointed
supervisor in charge of the Packing department on day-work.
He continued in that position until depressed trading
conditions resulted in redundancy among the workforce in
February, 1993. Reduced numbers in the department and
altered work-practices meant that a Supervisor was no longer
necessary in the Packing department. The worker, therefore,
reverted to his previous position as four-group shift
supervisor, in accordance with precedent and practice. The
Union's claim that the worker's position is redundant is,
therefore, without foundation.
2. The claimant's colleague who remained in the packing
department had been the claimant's superior.
3. The Union's claim that there is one less supervisory
position within the Company is inaccurate. The worker in
question is still acting in a supervisory capacity.
4. The claimant is not required to engage in heavy physical
work. There is no manual element to the job.
5. Payment of a redundancy settlement above statutory is
out of the question as the case, which the Company believes
is a pilot case by the Union, could be used as precedent in
future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find that
a case has been made by the Union that a redundancy situation
existed in respect of supervisory staff. Accordingly the Court
does not concede the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th November, 1993 Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.