Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9369 Case Number: LCR13968 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MCCANN FITZGERALD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the selection of a worker for redundancy.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court accepts that arising
from the re-organisation of work which will result in improved
productivity, the claimant's job is now redundant. The Court does
not consider that there is appropriate alternative work for her in
the firm and in the particular cirucmstances of this case
recommends that the employer make a redundancy payment to her of
#15,000 in addition to her statutory entitlement.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9369 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13968
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: MCCANN FITZGERALD
(Represented by Management Support Services (Irl) Ltd)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the selection of a worker for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a law firm based in Dublin. It is comprised of
two groups of employees, "fee earners" who are legal staff
involved in direct client servicing, and support staff, which
includes administrative and secretarial workers. In 1992 the
Company advised the Union that it intended to implement 3
redundancies in the property department due to a down-turn in
business and a re-organisation of work practices. Two of the
workers were secretarial staff. The other employee involved is
the worker concerned, who is a credit controller. The Union
disputed the proposed redundancies and the issue was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission in December, 1992. A conciliation
conference was held on the 17th December, 1992. Subsequently the
Company withdrew notice to the two nominated secretarial staff and
selected two other workers but indicated its intention to declare
the worker concerned redundant. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 26th
January, 1993. A Court hearing was held on the 2nd February,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no justification for the Company's decision to
declare the worker concerned redundant. The intention of
management to have "fee earners" take on more responsibility
for their own credit control is wholly impractical and will
not work effectively. This view has been confirmed by many
workers and by some of the firm's partners. The Company could
keep the worker in employment and use natural wastage,
voluntary severance, early retirement or, failing these,
implement the redundancy on a "last in, first out" basis.
There are approximately 48 other administrative staff with
less service than the worker concerned.
2. Of the three credit controllers in the Company the
worker concerned is most senior in this function, but junior
in terms of service in the Company. An equitable solution to
any perceived surplus capacity would be a re-organisation of
the work, with the employee concerned, as senior credit
controller, being allocated most responsibility in this area.
3. There is also a permanent requirement in the Company for
replacements of staff out on illness, maternity leave, etc.,
and Management could have used that requirement to retain the
worker.
4. The Union rejects the Company's claim that the property
market is reduced by 46%. The Union estimate is a 5%
reduction against a back-drop of a number of very successful
years where turnover reached exceptional levels. The property
area is only one aspect of the worker's credit control work.
Her responsibility also includes construction, insolvency and
litigation. In the present economic climate insolvency work
more than off-sets any fall-off in the property area and the
skills of an experienced credit controller are more necessary
than ever.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's property department has experienced a 46%
reduction in turnover during the past few years. The ratio of
"fee earners" to staff in property was 1:1 compared to 1:2 in
the rest of the firm. It is obvious that property activities
will not be increasing in the foreseeable future. In view of
these difficulties the Company reviewed its procedures and
decided that "fee earners" could take responsibility for their
own fees and credit control. Consequently three workers with
responsibility for credit control were affected, the worker
concerned to the greatest degree as her job primarily involved
credit control.
2. The Company, due to a decline in business activity,
increasing costs for funding and investment, has been forced
to reduce staffing levels. In the past, it has been possible
to avoid redundancies through natural wastage and sometimes
carrying additional staff for a time. This cannot now be done
and the Company must implement the redundancy. The worker
concerned was one of three workers at credit controller level
and had the least service of the three. The Company
approached the other two workers to ascertain if they were
interested in availing of voluntary redundancy. They
declined. The Company had no alternative but to select the
worker concerned.
3. The worker has been fairly selected for redundancy. She
cannot be redeployed to another area of the firm. The 48
workers junior in service are, for the most part, secretarial
staff earning substantially less than the worker concerned.
The Company offered the worker a severance payment at the
conciliation conference and is prepared to review the terms of
this offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court accepts that arising
from the re-organisation of work which will result in improved
productivity, the claimant's job is now redundant. The Court does
not consider that there is appropriate alternative work for her in
the firm and in the particular cirucmstances of this case
recommends that the employer make a redundancy payment to her of
#15,000 in addition to her statutory entitlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
23rd February, 1993 ---------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSD TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.