Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/93/400 Case Number: AD9389 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ADT/ALLIED SECURITY SYSTEMS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST119/93, concerning method of selection for redundancy.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the circumstances pertaining when this case
was heard by the Rights Commissioner, the Court does not now find
grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court notes that agreement has been reached between the
parties on the future operation of the policy of "last in first
out" (L.I.F.O.).
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93400 APPEAL DECISION AD8993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ADT/ALLIED SECURITY SYSTEMS
Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST119/93, concerning method of selection for
redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 8th January, 1993, the Company informed the Union that it
was making 26 workers in the guarding division redundant. The
Union was informed that the selection for redundancy would be made
on a "last in first out" basis, except where clients requested the
retention of certain workers on particular assignments. Details
of the 26 workers concerned were supplied to the Union.
3. On 20th January, 1993, the Union informed the Company that as
a result of the Company's failure to make its selection for
redundancy on a "last in first out" basis it was holding a ballot
of its members for industrial action. On 29th January, 1993, a
meeting took place between the parties at which agreement was
reached to refer the case of one of the workers concerned to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
On 28th June, 1993, the Rights Commissioner recommended as
follows:-
(a) "I recommend that the Union accepts that the Company
acted within agreements and in a reasonable manner in
the matter of the original lay offs.
(b) I recommend further that the Company should attempt to
reach all those on lay off at their last known address,
in the event of re-employment always providing that it
is accepted that the Company decides who is most
suitable for re-employment based on operational needs
and client requirements.
(c) That the alleged practice of the Controller covering
should cease, as such if it happens, is an unfair
practice in relation to the rest of the staff who wish
for fair distribution of available hours among
themselves."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the Union
to the Labour Court on 7th July, 1993. The Labour Court heard the
appeal on 11th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is generally accepted that in redundancy situations,
the principle of "last in first out" is the most equitable way
of dealing with this type of situation.
2. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing the Company
insisted that the clients wishes in relation to certain staff
operating on certain assignments, as requested in
correspondence to the Company, had to be observed.
3. The Company's arguments on clients wishes are false and
misleading.
4. Since the lay-off numerous staff have operated without
training on the assignments mentioned in the correspondence
The Company's operation is based on flexibility and mobility
and this principle applies throughout the security industry.
5. On 26th July, 1993 agreement was reached between the
parties as follows:-
"Under no circumstances whatsoever will the Dublin
Services Branch permit or tolerate any panel member
producing any letter, or any person, for preferential
treatment as to the basis for continuous employment.
The principle of last-in first-out must apply."
6. The workers concerned have been unfairly treated and
should be compensated for their loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company fully accepts the "last in first out"
principle, save where an entire contract is put at risk.
2. If the Company accepted the Union's arguments then an
additional 25 jobs would have been at risk.
3. The Company is not in a position to call the client's
bluff as suggested by the Union. The costs in jobs and
contracts would not justify the risk involved.
4. An agreement reached in a separate context recently
between the parties has reinforced the "last in first out"
principle within the Company.
DECISION:
6. Having regard to the circumstances pertaining when this case
was heard by the Rights Commissioner, the Court does not now find
grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court notes that agreement has been reached between the
parties on the future operation of the policy of "last in first
out" (L.I.F.O.).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
2nd November, 1993 ________________________
F.B/U.S. Chairman