Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93651 Case Number: LCR14282 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: P.J CARROLL AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Redundancy.
Recommendation:
The Court is of the view that the proposals which emanated from
conciliation under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission
are reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted by the
Union.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93651 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14282
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: P.J CARROLL AND COMPANY LIMITED
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 June 1993 the Company introduced a rationalisation
plan requiring approximately 110 redundancies at its Dundalk
plant. As part of the plan the Company requires two compulsory
redundancies from the administration area. It has identified the
two posts to be made redundant and has offered the Company's
severance terms to the workers concerned (Details supplied to the
Court). The Union rejected mandatory redundancies. The issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on the 22nd October 1993 and 4th November
1993. At the second conference a proposal emerged which increased
the redundancy package offered to the two workers by approximately
#2,500 and #2,800 respectively. The Company accepted the proposal
but it was rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 17th
November 1993. A Court hearing was held on the 29th November
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union objects to compulsory redundancies in the
administrative area. It does not object to workers
volunteering if the Company's redundancy package is
acceptable to them. Were the Company to enhance its offer
other workers might volunteer for redundancy and the 2
workers concerned could be redeployed. They both have long
service with the Company and, have been very flexible in
relation to changing jobs in the past.
2. The workers concerned have little prospect of obtaining
alternative employment in the area.
3. In 1990 a compulsory redundancy situation arose and
workers received settlements amounting to #12,000 over and
above the terms now on offer. That settlement might be more
acceptable to workers in the current redundancy situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The two redundancies identified by the Company are
essential as part of its restructuring plan. The severance
terms offered to the workers concerned compare very
favourably with redundancy terms generally and have already
been accepted by a substantial number of workers in the
plant.
2. Since the commencement of the rationalisation programme
there has been no improvement in the Company's performance
and market share continues to decline.
3. The Company accepted the proposal at conciliation which
increased the redundancy settlement to the two workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the proposals which emanated from
conciliation under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission
are reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted by the
Union.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr.Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.