Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93148 Case Number: LCR13998 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MURPHY AND GUNN LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Proposed redundancy of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having given lengthy consideration to the submissions of the
parties and the oral arguments advanced at the hearing, the Court
is of the view that the Company has not established a credible
case to justify the redundancy of the claimant at this time. The
outcome of the proposed re-organisation cannot be accurately
forecast and it is conceivable that in some ways it could add to
present difficulties. In the circumstances, the Court believes
that consideration of redundancy for the claimant is premature.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the practicality of the
proposed re-organisation be put to the test between now and the
end of year. During this period, the claimant should be assigned
alternative duties and the position should be reviewed again at
the year end.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93148 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13998
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MURPHY AND GUNN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY FOR THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Proposed redundancy of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has outlets at Rathgar, Milltown and Tallaght and
has franchises for Toyota and B.M.W. cars. The dispute concerns
the Company's proposal to make the worker concerned who is a van
driver in the parts department at Rathgar, redundant. He has 20
years service. The stores branch is staffed by 4 workers - a
parts manager, 2 parts personnel and the worker concerned. It is
the Company's intention to make the worker redundant on the
grounds that the parts business has suffered a significant decline
in recent years. The Union rejects the Company's proposal,
claiming that there is sufficient work to retain the employee
concerned in full-time employment. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held
on 27th January and 16th February, 1993. As no agreement was
reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd
February, 1993. A Court hearing was held held on the 11th March,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposed redundancy cannot be justified on economic
grounds. Based on the 1992 turnover figures, it is estimated
that the profit in the stores division is approximately
#200,000.
2. The Company's proposal that the van driver duties be
assigned to other staff members is unfair and impractical.
The other staff are already fully engaged and there is no
scope to assign additional duties to them. It would not be
practical to expect them to undertake deliveries which would
involve leaving their place of work. The workload of the van
driver is substantial (details supplied to the Court). It
could not be undertaken on a part-time basis and the Company's
suggestion that it might discontinue the service is not
credible. The service generates approximately #186,000 of
income per annum. It would make no commercial sense for the
Company to forego this volume of business.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. There has been a major reduction in parts business in
recent years without any decrease in labour costs which have
increased consistently as a percentage of parts department
turnover (details supplied to the Court).
2. A reduction in staffing in the parts department is
essential. The van was originally required to collect parts
from both Toyota and BMW on the Naas Road, and was utilised to
deliver parts to customers on journeys to and from the Naas
Road, in addition to making special deliveries to customers.
A number of years ago Toyota ceased parts collection by
dealers and operate a courier service. BMW will do likewise
shortly.
3. In view of the reduction in business, the Company has no
option but to select the worker for redundancy. The 3 other
stores personnel are trained in the selection of parts and
training for that position takes four years. The only
realistic option is to cease parts deliveries which are not
viable and allow other staff to undertake less frequent but
profitable deliveries.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having given lengthy consideration to the submissions of the
parties and the oral arguments advanced at the hearing, the Court
is of the view that the Company has not established a credible
case to justify the redundancy of the claimant at this time. The
outcome of the proposed re-organisation cannot be accurately
forecast and it is conceivable that in some ways it could add to
present difficulties. In the circumstances, the Court believes
that consideration of redundancy for the claimant is premature.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the practicality of the
proposed re-organisation be put to the test between now and the
end of year. During this period, the claimant should be assigned
alternative duties and the position should be reviewed again at
the year end.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
----------------
16th March, 1993 Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
NOTE
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR. TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.