Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93112 Case Number: LCR13991 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MEASUREX (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Selection for redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the restructuring of the Company is
essential to the survival of the firm and consequently those
retained in its employment. Inevitably some staff will be
affected through redundancy.
The claimant is in this situation. His commitment to work is
unquestioned and despite the redundancy situation affecting his
present job he continues to apply himself to the tasks open to
him.
The Court has come to the conclusion that his employment with
Measurex is terminal and his selection for redundancy was not
unfair. He should now accept this situation on the financial
terms offered by the Company.
Further to this, the Court recommends that he explore the
opportunity open to him to set up an operation in his own right.
To this end the Company should give him unreserved support to
bring such an enterprise into full reality.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93112 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13991
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MEASUREX (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed with the Company as a Senior
Supervisor (Assembly). In December, 1991, the Company, due to a
downturn in business, decided to reduce its workforce by
twenty-seven. It was also decided to relocate the software
engineering functions from Cork to Waterford, thus closing the
Cork operation entirely. In November, 1992, the Company announced
a further rationalisation programme with 40 job losses which
affected all categories of workers.
Twenty-one workers opted for voluntary redundancy and the
remaining nineteen redundancies were made on a compulsory basis.
The Union claims that the selection for redundancy of the worker
concerned was unfair. The Company rejected the claim. Local
level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 9th February, 1993 but no agreement could
be reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 12th
February, 1993. The Court hearing took place on 25th February,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has no justification for making the worker
concerned redundant. He was the Senior Supervisor in the
Company and Junior colleagues are now doing his work.
2. The selection of the worker concerned was unfair and not
made in accordance with the principle of seniority which
applied in all instances of compulsory redundancy.
3. The worker concerned has given the Company 15 years loyal
service and has worked in many areas throughout the Company.
Workers have been retained who are Junior in terms of position
and service.
4. There are suitable positions within the restructured
Company for which the worker concerned would be suitably
qualified.
5. The Company has acknowledged that the worker concerned has
made a significant contribution to the success of the Company
over a long period of time. He has been treated unfairly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers declared redundant were identified on the
basis of the Company's requirements in the smaller
organisation. At no stage has seniority been a primary
criterion in selection for redundancy.
2. Where possible, redeployment (at reduced salaries) was
offered. This was not possible in the case of the worker
concerned, who was employed as Assembly Manager.
3. The position held by the worker concerned no longer exists
and there is no position into which he can be suitably
redeployed.
4. The Company's severance package under the circumstances is
a generous one.
5. The worker concerned is not the only worker made redundant
who was not given the opportunity for redeployment. In the
case of another Assembly Supervisor made redundant the Company
was not able to offer any other position.
6. The Company has offered to discuss with the worker a
business opportunity for him to act as a supplier, to supply
parts which could be readily manufactured by him and would not
involve a large capital outlay.
7. The Company has acted in good faith at all times and
rejects any suggestion that the worker has been unfairly
treated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that the restructuring of the Company is
essential to the survival of the firm and consequently those
retained in its employment. Inevitably some staff will be
affected through redundancy.
The claimant is in this situation. His commitment to work is
unquestioned and despite the redundancy situation affecting his
present job he continues to apply himself to the tasks open to
him.
The Court has come to the conclusion that his employment with
Measurex is terminal and his selection for redundancy was not
unfair. He should now accept this situation on the financial
terms offered by the Company.
Further to this, the Court recommends that he explore the
opportunity open to him to set up an operation in his own right.
To this end the Company should give him unreserved support to
bring such an enterprise into full reality.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
11th March, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.