Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93271 Case Number: LCR14057 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA GCON - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning redundancies arising out of the rationalisation of the tote.
Recommendation:
5. In order to attract increased attendances and so help to
reduce the substantial and continuing losses at its Dublin
race-tracks, the Bord decided to introduce a new enhanced tote
system which would be owned, installed and maintained by
contractors. As a result there would no longer be work for the
Bord's four technicians and the Bord proposed to make them
redundant. The terms of redundancy was the issue submitted to the
Court although the Union continued to question the need for all
the redundancies.
The Union argued at the hearing of the case that the main issue
was complicated by other outstanding industrial relations matters
between this group of workers and the Bord and by perceptions on
the part of the workers that other staff had received more
favourable redundancy treatment in the past.
Matters unfinished involved an earlier agreement to the assessment
of the jobs of the workers concerned viz a viz their counterparts
in the Racing Board and the application of the 3rd phase of the
P.E.S.P. due from 1st January, 1993.
The extent of losses being incurred by the Bord were not disputed
but the Union argued that cost saving measures such as were
involved in the present redundancies would be futile in the
absence of extensive promotional and development measures to
increase attendances and income. In any event, where similar tote
systems operated in Britain, at least one technician was retained
for maintenance duties.
The Bord stated that the losses which it incurred were
attributable in the main to its high salary/wage base when
compared with similar tracks in Britain and that this matter had
to be addressed if the business was to become viable. It also
stated that the employment of technicians in Britain involved
additional duties which were undertaken by other staff in Ireland.
The Bord did not dispute that there had been earlier agreement to
assess the jobs of the technicians and agreed that the 3rd phase
of the P.E.S.P. was due from 1st January, 1993. However, the Bord
satisfied the Court that staff who took voluntary redundancy at an
earlier time on a Public Service scheme which is now defunct, did
not benefit in the manner perceived by the Union and the workers.
Having considered all the issues put forward and having regard to
the ages and service of the technicians involved, the fact that
they might have benefited from the assessment of their jobs, the
non-application of the P.E.S.P. the Court recommends that the Bord
pay and that the workers accept the following redundancy amounts
as an equitable settlement of all outstanding issues between
them:-
Worker A #41,000
Worker B #40,000
Worker C #34,000
Worker D #25,000
The Court does not recommend any change in the Pension
arrangements.
The Court notes that on the request of the Bord, the workers will
receive priority interviews from the Tote contractor for any
maintenance work which will arise on the new system. The Court
also notes that the technicians may bid for the contract work on
provincial tracks.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93271 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14057
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD NA GCON
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning redundancies arising out of the
rationalisation of the tote.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The two Dublin Stadia Companies (Harolds Cross and
Shelbourne Park) are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bord na
gCon (The Greyhound Board). In response to falling income in
the two Stadia the board decided to introduce a new tote
system at both venues. This rationalisation has led to four
technicians being made redundant.
2. The Union sought:
1) A regrading of the technicians to a level similar
to the Racing Board (Technician 1).
2) Redundancy terms based on this higher rate at a
level of 4 weeks pay per year of service plus
statutory.
3) First refusal on any work arising on the new
system.
4) Improvements in the pension scheme by way of
crediting added years.
The Company proposed:
1) To offer 3 weeks' pay per year of service plus
statutory with no ceiling or 4 weeks' pay per year
of service plus statutory with a ceiling of
#30,000.
2) To make representations to the Company supplying
the new equipment to have the Technicians
considered for any work arising.
3) Allowing years of service worked with previous Tote
Company (i.e. prior to Bord na gCon) to be credited
for pension purposes.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and conciliation conferences were held on the 1st April, 1993
and 8th April, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and the
issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd April,
1993. The Court investigated the dispute on the 26th April,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A similar tote system operates at tracks in the U.K. and
require 1 or 2 maintenance people.
2. People who left the Board on a voluntary package a few
years ago received 5 weeks' pay per year of service and the
outstanding years on their pension were bought out.
3. The rate of pay of technicians in the Board is 5% below
that of technicians in the Racing Board.
4. The Board, with the new system, would recover in one
year the money paid out in redundancy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy terms offered are generous and in excess
of general norms.
2. The Board will be seeking tenders for the servicing of
the 15 provincial track systems and would welcome a
competitive bid from the Technicians.
3. The contractors for the new tote system have agreed to
the Board's request to give the full time technicians
priority interviews.
4. The Board cannot afford to buy added years with respect
to the technician's pensions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In order to attract increased attendances and so help to
reduce the substantial and continuing losses at its Dublin
race-tracks, the Bord decided to introduce a new enhanced tote
system which would be owned, installed and maintained by
contractors. As a result there would no longer be work for the
Bord's four technicians and the Bord proposed to make them
redundant. The terms of redundancy was the issue submitted to the
Court although the Union continued to question the need for all
the redundancies.
The Union argued at the hearing of the case that the main issue
was complicated by other outstanding industrial relations matters
between this group of workers and the Bord and by perceptions on
the part of the workers that other staff had received more
favourable redundancy treatment in the past.
Matters unfinished involved an earlier agreement to the assessment
of the jobs of the workers concerned viz a viz their counterparts
in the Racing Board and the application of the 3rd phase of the
P.E.S.P. due from 1st January, 1993.
The extent of losses being incurred by the Bord were not disputed
but the Union argued that cost saving measures such as were
involved in the present redundancies would be futile in the
absence of extensive promotional and development measures to
increase attendances and income. In any event, where similar tote
systems operated in Britain, at least one technician was retained
for maintenance duties.
The Bord stated that the losses which it incurred were
attributable in the main to its high salary/wage base when
compared with similar tracks in Britain and that this matter had
to be addressed if the business was to become viable. It also
stated that the employment of technicians in Britain involved
additional duties which were undertaken by other staff in Ireland.
The Bord did not dispute that there had been earlier agreement to
assess the jobs of the technicians and agreed that the 3rd phase
of the P.E.S.P. was due from 1st January, 1993. However, the Bord
satisfied the Court that staff who took voluntary redundancy at an
earlier time on a Public Service scheme which is now defunct, did
not benefit in the manner perceived by the Union and the workers.
Having considered all the issues put forward and having regard to
the ages and service of the technicians involved, the fact that
they might have benefited from the assessment of their jobs, the
non-application of the P.E.S.P. the Court recommends that the Bord
pay and that the workers accept the following redundancy amounts
as an equitable settlement of all outstanding issues between
them:-
Worker A #41,000
Worker B #40,000
Worker C #34,000
Worker D #25,000
The Court does not recommend any change in the Pension
arrangements.
The Court notes that on the request of the Bord, the workers will
receive priority interviews from the Tote contractor for any
maintenance work which will arise on the new system. The Court
also notes that the technicians may bid for the contract work on
provincial tracks.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th May, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P.O.C./M.H. ____________________________________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.