Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9385 Case Number: LCR13975 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute arising from the interpretation of L.C.R. 13911.
Recommendation:
5. To meet the concern expressed by the Union that the proposals
before the Court in December, 1992 conferred one-sided rights on
the Company in respect of compulsory redundancy, the Court in
LCR13911 recommended the withdrawal from the proposals of all
clauses and references to compulsory redundancy. The purpose of
that Recommendation was to restrict the Company to the position
which obtained prior to 20th August, 1992 in respect of compulsory
redundancy i.e.
"should a reduction in the workforce become necessary, due to
business, economic, or other circumstances, consultation will
take place with employees and their Union representatives".
The objective of this restriction was to protect the employment of
workers as far as possible.
Apart from this restriction, the Court did not intend that
LCR13911 would interfere in any way with the Company's proposals
for contracting-out non-core activities/services. The Court
considered that the options afforded to workers under Section 2.5
of the Company's "Cost Improvement Measures" secured the
employment of workers who wished to remain in the Company, albeit
in alternative jobs, and so achieved the primary objective.
In summary, the Court through LCR13911 restricted the Company's
freedom of action in relation to compulsory redundancy and
interpreted Section 2.5 as an undertaking by the Company of
continued employment in alternative jobs for those workers
affected by the contracting-out of non-core activities/services,
but who wished to remain in the Company. Accordingly the Court
considers that in the event of non-core activities/services being
contracted out there is an obligation on each worker concerned to
choose one of the options available under Section 2.5. In the
event that a worker who wishes to remain in employment does not
apply for an alternative position, the Court considers that the
Company is entitled to redeploy him/her.
Should redeployment involve a reduction of grade or a loss such as
shift premium, the parties should negotiate appropriate
compensation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9385 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13975
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising from the interpretation of L.C.R. 13911.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Labour Court Recommendation No. 13911 dealt with a dispute
relating to a Company proposal to implement cost improvement
measures. Its recommendations were accepted by both the
Company and the Union. One clause of the Recommendation is as
follows:
"Because of the range and complexity of the total
proposals now being put to staff, the Court recommends
that issues which arise from their interpretation or
implementation and are not resolved through procedures
at local level, should be referred to the Court for
final resolution".
2. As part of the Company's cost-cutting measures, it was
proposed to contract-out the non-core activities of canteen,
transport and security services at its 3 plants at Kilbarry,
Butterstown and Dungarvan. The proposal affects 49 workers in
total.
3. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the
interpretation of the provisions of L.C.R. No. 13911 which
dealt with compulsory redundancies. This related to the
Company's capacity to implement the contracting-out provisions
of its cost-improvement measures. The relevant clause (2.5)
is as follows:
"All non-core activities/services will be examined with a
view to contracting out these activities/services e.g.
Transport, Canteen, Cleaning, Security, Maintenance,
etc".
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under the
terms of L.C.R. No. 13911 by letter from the Company dated
21st January, 1993. The Company's letter enclosed a letter to
the Union setting out the parties' agreed positions on the
dispute as follows:
"The Company for its part maintains that nothing in
L.C.R. 13911 precludes the Company from contracting-out
non-core activities as set out in the Cost Improvement
Measures document dated 4th January, 1993.
The Union for its part maintains that the effect of
L.C.R. 13911, insofar as it covers the issues of
compulsory redundancy, is to preclude the Company from
implementing the "contracting-out" proposals if doing so
involves compulsory redundancy for any members".
5. In relation to compulsory redundancy L.C.R. No. 13911
stated as follows:
"all clauses and references in the proposals to
compulsory redundancy should be withdrawn and the
position as obtained prior to 20th August, 1992 in
relation to redundancies should apply".
The position prior to 20th August, 1992 is as set out in the
1990 Terms and Conditions Agreement as follows:
"Should a reduction in the workforce become necessary,
due to business, economic, or other circumstances,
consultation will take place with employees and their
Union representatives".
6. The Labour Court investigated the dispute in Waterford on
9th February, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's position is that it will proceed with the
contracting-out of non-core activities in accordance with the
terms of L.C.R. 13911, following agreement. This was
clarified to the Union by letter dated 8th January, 1993
(details supplied). The options available to workers affected
by contracting-out of non-core activities/services were set
out prior to the ballot and accepted by the workers (details
supplied).
2. L.C.R. 13911 provides that redundancies which may arise
should be dealt with in accordance with agreed procedures.
The Labour Court in its recommendation does not preclude or
limit the Company's ability to contract-out non-core
activities/ services.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the Labour Court investigation the Union indicated
clearly that whatever agreement was reached it would not
include the contracting-out of jobs (details supplied). To do
so would be in breach of the E.C. Transfer of Undertaking
Regulation 1980. L.C.R. No. 13911 stated that all references
to compulsory redundancy should be withdrawn.
2. There are 49 workers affected by the Company's proposal
and they wish to remain in their current jobs (details
supplied). The workers accepted L.C.R. No. 13911 on the basis
that the agreement reached did not include compulsory
redundancy or compulsory redeployment. The services in which
the workers are employed will be retained by the Company and
in these circumstances, the workers should retain their jobs.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. To meet the concern expressed by the Union that the proposals
before the Court in December, 1992 conferred one-sided rights on
the Company in respect of compulsory redundancy, the Court in
LCR13911 recommended the withdrawal from the proposals of all
clauses and references to compulsory redundancy. The purpose of
that Recommendation was to restrict the Company to the position
which obtained prior to 20th August, 1992 in respect of compulsory
redundancy i.e.
"should a reduction in the workforce become necessary, due to
business, economic, or other circumstances, consultation will
take place with employees and their Union representatives".
The objective of this restriction was to protect the employment of
workers as far as possible.
Apart from this restriction, the Court did not intend that
LCR13911 would interfere in any way with the Company's proposals
for contracting-out non-core activities/services. The Court
considered that the options afforded to workers under Section 2.5
of the Company's "Cost Improvement Measures" secured the
employment of workers who wished to remain in the Company, albeit
in alternative jobs, and so achieved the primary objective.
In summary, the Court through LCR13911 restricted the Company's
freedom of action in relation to compulsory redundancy and
interpreted Section 2.5 as an undertaking by the Company of
continued employment in alternative jobs for those workers
affected by the contracting-out of non-core activities/services,
but who wished to remain in the Company. Accordingly the Court
considers that in the event of non-core activities/services being
contracted out there is an obligation on each worker concerned to
choose one of the options available under Section 2.5. In the
event that a worker who wishes to remain in employment does not
apply for an alternative position, the Court considers that the
Company is entitled to redeploy him/her.
Should redeployment involve a reduction of grade or a loss such as
shift premium, the parties should negotiate appropriate
compensation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
____________________
24th February, 1993. Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.