Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93588 Case Number: LCR14273 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: P.J. CARROLL AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Redundancy
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances which now prevail in the Company the
Court is of the view that the Union should accept the Company's
proposals of redundancy for the employees involved in this
dispute.
The Court strongly urges the Company to implement, as far as
possible, its undertaking to give preference to any of its
employees who set up in business with regard to contract work.
The Court so recommends
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93588 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14273
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: P.J. CARROLL AND COMPANY LIMITED
and
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 8 carpenters. Over the past number of
years there has been a significant drop in demand for the
Company's product resulting in a reduction in profits. In 1993
the Company introduced a rationalisation plan which required
approximately 110 redundancies and the closure of the old premises
at Church Street, Dundalk where the workers concerned are based.
The Company proposes to make these workers redundant (details of
redundacy package supplied to the Court). The Union rejected
Management's proposals, claiming that some of the workers could
still be employed as carpenters at the Company's main plant at
Dublin Road, or redeployed to other work. The issue was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
was held on the 7th September, 1993. As no agreement could be
reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st
October, 1993. A Court hearing was held on the 29th November,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have worked for the Company for
many years. Carpenters have always been employed on factory
maintenance and there is still a need for this work at the
Company's Dublin Road plant.
2. Up to recently 70% of the work of the employees
concerned involved making and fitting display units. The
Company has decided to contract out this work which could be
done by the carpenters.
3. The workers concerned are prepared to accept
re-deployment into the Company's main plant or as sales
representatives. This has happened on previous occasions.
4. The workers concerned are interested in retaining their
employment by agreeing to re-deployment in areas away from
their trade and by undertaking maintenance work without
helpers. If the Company were to redeploy some of the workers
and not contract out work proper to carpenters the jobs of
those workers could be secured.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The premises where the carpenters are employed is to
close and the site will be sold. A carpentry facility will
not be required on a full-time basis at the Dublin Road plant.
The amount of factory maintenance there amounts to 10-12
weeks' work per annum.
2. Due to the Company's decision to change to more modern
display units consisting of less timber and more plastic/steel
which are bought and supplied in kit form and erected by
merchandisers there is little carpentry work involved and
contracting out this work is much more cost effective. Should
any of the workers' concerned subsequently set up their own
business the Company would favourably consider them for
contract work.
3. The Company cannot re-deploy the carpenters because of
the significant reduction of the workforce in all areas of the
plant
4. Management must take all possible steps to reduce costs
and improve its competitive position in order to survive.
5. The Comprehensive redundancy package on offer has been
accepted by a majority of the workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances which now prevail in the Company the
Court is of the view that the Union should accept the Company's
proposals of redundancy for the employees involved in this
dispute.
The Court strongly urges the Company to implement, as far as
possible, its undertaking to give preference to any of its
employees who set up in business with regard to contract work.
The Court so recommends
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
T O'D/U.S. -------------
Deputy Chairperson
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.