Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93312 Case Number: LCR14090 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CLERY'S AND COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning proposed redundancies.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the views of the parties expressed in
their oral and written submissions finds that trading conditions
require that cost savings be achieved if the Company is to be
competitive and maintain employment. The Court notes that options
for cost savings put forward by the Company have not been
discussed between the parties.
With a view to achieving the necessary cost savings and protecting
employment as far as possible, the Court recommends that the
options put forward be the subject of immediate and meaningful
discussions between the parties.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93312 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14090
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CLERY'S AND COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning proposed redundancies.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On the 8th March, 1993, the Company advised the workers
that they were seeking 60 redundancies from all categories of
workers in the Company. A number of voluntary redundancies
were achieved but the Company had to select a number of
workers for redundancy. The Union represents 12 workers who
were issued with notice of redundancy in the following
grades:-
9 workers from Porter/Transport Department
1 worker from Carpet/Workroom Department
1 worker from Stationery/Printing Department
1 worker from Canteen.
2. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences took place on the
26th March, 1993, 14th May, 1993 and the 17th May, 1993. At
conciliation the Company indicated that its requirements for
redundancies could be reduced if the union were prepared to
reduce costs in line with the following proposals:
(a) Elimination of productivity payment.
(b) Structured lay-off or short time.
(c) Staggered start and finish arrangements
(d) Saturday working as part of the normal week i.e. 5
or 6 day roster.
(e) Job sharing/part-time working
(f) Making the pension scheme a contributory one.
The Union rejected these proposals and the issue was referred
by the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the
18th May, 1993. The Court investigated the matter on the
21st May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposals put forward by the Company are
unacceptable because the workers are already suffering
financial loss as a result of the elimination of guaranteed
overtime.
2. The Union sought redeployment of workers from the
O'Connell Street Branch to the Tallaght Store which would
have prevented job losses and produced savings for the
Company.
3. The workers are very busy and under considerable
pressure with their current workload and cannot see the need
for redundancies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was made clear that if the required number of
redundancies could not be achieved by voluntary means the
Company would have to implement compulsory redundancies.
2. The Company has sought to implement payroll savings from
this group of workers through negotiation since January,
1992.
3. The Company is experiencing a deteriorating trading
position.
4. Payroll costs in the Company represent approximately 70%
of total costs.
5. Proposals put forward at conciliation, which would
provide cost savings and which could reduce the number of
redundancies, were rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the views of the parties expressed in
their oral and written submissions finds that trading conditions
require that cost savings be achieved if the Company is to be
competitive and maintain employment. The Court notes that options
for cost savings put forward by the Company have not been
discussed between the parties.
With a view to achieving the necessary cost savings and protecting
employment as far as possible, the Court recommends that the
options put forward be the subject of immediate and meaningful
discussions between the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
11th June, 1993 ____________________________________
P.O.C./J.C. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.