Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9348 Case Number: LCR13969 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TNT EXPRESS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Selection procedures for compulsory redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
at the hearing. On the basis of the information supplied, the
Court is of the opinion that
(a) There was no failure on the part of Management to allow
sufficient time to deal with the issue. The Court notes the
Management's reluctance to use the machinery of the Court and
the reason given but understands the issue of "double
jeopardy" no longer arises.
(b) The Court is satisfied that the criteria upon which the worker
was chosen for redundancy were exactly the same as those which
applied to the other workers similarly treated and that these
criteria were fair and objective.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the other
Union claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9348 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13969
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TNT EXPRESS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Selection procedures for compulsory redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a world-wide operation engaged in
freight-forwarding, with a small outlet in Ireland, employing
approximately 130 workers. In July, 1991, the Company merged with
Skypak and in May, 1992 it took over Federal Express.
Following changes in E.C. legislation concerning customs'
controls, the Company sought 17 redundancies before the end of
1992, with further redundancies in early, 1993. The Company
offered a voluntary redundancy package of three weeks' pay per
year of service plus two weeks' pay. If there were insufficient
volunteers for redundancy, the Company reserved the right to
proceed with compulsory redundancies, on the basis of 'Last In
First Out', within the departments affected, subject to the
retention of skills and experience.
Twelve workers accepted voluntary redundancy. The Company
selected five further redundancies on basis of last in first out
in the affected departments.
At a meeting with the Company on the 21st of December, 1992, the
Union disputed the selection of one worker for redundancy on the
grounds that his selection was unreasonable. On the 22nd of
December, the Union notified the Company that unless it
re-negotiated the worker's re-deployment, industrial action would
follow.
Seventeen workers were made rendundant on the 23rd of December.
The Union placed pickets on the Company premises on the 4th of
January, 1993 for fourteen days. The Union then referred the
dispute to the Labour Relations Commission, and a conciliation
conference took place on the 7th of January, 1993 at which no
progress was made. The Union then referred the dispute to the
Labour Court on the 19th of January, 1993 in accordance with
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. (The Company
declined to have the dispute referred to the Labour Court in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990). The Union claims that the worker should be re-instated,
with compensation for his losses to date. The Company has
rejected the Union's claim. The Labour Court investigated the
dispute on the 5th of February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker (the Clerical Shop-Steward), was employed in
the Import/Export department up to the time of his dismissal.
He was the third most junior staff-member in the Department.
In December, 1992, a more junior staff-member in the
Import/Export department was transferred to a vacancy in a
different Department. The shop-steward would have moved to
that vacant position, given the option.
2. The selection of the worker for redundancy was
unreasonable. There are in excess of 40 staff in the Dublin
operation with less service than he has. There are numerous
positions to which he could be re-deployed. He should be
reinstated, and compensated for losses he has incurred
to-date.
3. The Company has operated in an anti-Trade Union fashion in
its approach to the redundancies by failing to employ full
negotiating machinery. It failed to give the Union sufficient
time to deal with the redundancies, by withholding details
until shortly before their implementation. The Company acted
improperly by not agreeing to a referral of the dispute to the
Labour Court in accordance with Section 26 of the 1990 Act,
and by not retaining the worker pending the Court's
recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
4. 1. The Company considered the Court to be an inappropriate
forum to discuss an individual dismissal and was therefore
unable to agree to attend a hearing under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Company see the
appropriate route for discussion of the dispute as being via
the 1977 Unfair Dismissals Act. The Company is concerned that
it may be exposed to 'double jeopardy' through further appeal
of the redundancy in the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
2. The Company made all staff aware on an ongoing basis that
E.C. Legislation would lead to a considerable number of
redundancies. When it became clear (10th December, 1992) that
there would be insufficient voluntary redundancies, the
Company attempted to discuss the matter with the Union. The
Union was unable to meet the Company until the 21st of
December, 1992.
3. The worker had three and a half years' service with the
Company, within the Imports area. He could not have been
accommodated anywhere else in the Company as no redundant
position occurred elsewhere, and he had no experience of any
other type of work.
4. In July, 1992, all staff in the customs area were offered
week-end work on freight from outside the E.C. Area. The
Company indicated that those willing to do this work would not
be affected by redundancies. The staff declined the offer of
week-end work.
5. To reverse its decision would mean that the Company is
deprived of its right to select redundancies based on the
needs of the business. The 16 redundant workers, who are
without grievance up until now, may also feel justified in
appealing their selection to another forum.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
at the hearing. On the basis of the information supplied, the
Court is of the opinion that
(a) There was no failure on the part of Management to allow
sufficient time to deal with the issue. The Court notes the
Management's reluctance to use the machinery of the Court and
the reason given but understands the issue of "double
jeopardy" no longer arises.
(b) The Court is satisfied that the criteria upon which the worker
was chosen for redundancy were exactly the same as those which
applied to the other workers similarly treated and that these
criteria were fair and objective.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the other
Union claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
24th February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.