Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93512 Case Number: LCR14235 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THE KERRYMAN LIMITED - and - GRAPHICAL, PAPER AND MEDIA UNION (GPMU |
Dispute concerning the proposed re-deployment of three workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
satisfied that clause (c) of the section headed "Reduction in
Manpower Levels" in the 1991 agreement can only be interpreted as
requiring the agreement of any individual to be re-deployed.
Accordingly, the Court does not consider that the Company is
entitled to compulsorarily re-deploy the staff in question in this
case against their will.
The Court notes that Clause (f) of the above mentioned section
provides for "other mutually agreed means" for resolving
overstaffing and suggests that the parties should consider whether
a resolution of the problem lies in such an area.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93512 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14235
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: THE KERRYMAN LIMITED
and
GRAPHICAL, PAPER AND MEDIA UNION (GPMU)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed re-deployment of three
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Kerryman was established as a newspaper in 1904 and
currently employs 55 full-time and 12 part-time staff. In
February, 1991 the Company and Union reached an agreement on
the introduction of new direct input technology. The
agreement provided for, among other things, job security,
employment opportunities and provision for a reduction in
manpower levels by specified means.
Under the Section headed "Reduction in Manpower Levels" Clause
(C) states:-
"Placement in the case of staff members willing and
qualified to avail of suitable alternative employment
within the Company".
As a result of rationalisation and the introduction of direct
input in 1991 a number of workers availed of early
retirement/voluntary redundancy terms. Three positions were
left unfilled and the Company sought the re-deployment of
staff to these posts. The vacancies were advertised
internally on two occasions but no applications were received
for re-deployment. A meeting on the 2nd September, 1992
between the Company and the Union failed to resolve the
situation and it was agreed to refer the matter to the Labour
Relations Commission.
3. Conciliation conferences were held on 25th November, 1992 and
26th March, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and the
matter was referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the
Labour Court on the 10th September, 1993. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 21st October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is sufficient work in the pre-press area for the
existing staff to cover.
2. The thrust of the 1991 agreement was that all moves or
re-deployment would be on a voluntary basis.
3. The Company maintain there is a shortage of printers in
the area in question yet they allowed two printers to leave on
voluntary redundancy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot afford the burden of recruiting three
additional staff in the machine and finishing departments
while carrying staff numbers over and above its requirements
in the composition department.
2. The Company will provide a comprehensive training
programme to ensure that transferees are trained to industry
standards.
3. The work which transferees would be required to do would
be consistent with craft status. They would require
skills which are comparable to their present skills
4. There will be no diminution of earnings or job security
as a result of transferring.
5. The Company is prepared to accept that a review will be
conducted by an Industrial Relations Officer to assess
progress following re-deployment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
satisfied that clause (c) of the section headed "Reduction in
Manpower Levels" in the 1991 agreement can only be interpreted as
requiring the agreement of any individual to be re-deployed.
Accordingly, the Court does not consider that the Company is
entitled to compulsorarily re-deploy the staff in question in this
case against their will.
The Court notes that Clause (f) of the above mentioned section
provides for "other mutually agreed means" for resolving
overstaffing and suggests that the parties should consider whether
a resolution of the problem lies in such an area.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
1st November, 1993 _________________________
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.