Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93621 Case Number: LCR14260 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning. (1) Redundancy in the Laboratory Department (2) Change of Shift (Supervisors)
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
Claim I - Compulsory Redundancy
In the circumstances that exist at present in the Company due to
implementation of the necessary rationalisation programme, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. The
Court would urge the Company in the event of any appropriate
vacancy arising in the future that the claimant be given first
option on the post.
Claim II - Change of Shift
The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's proposal
in this instance, which is considered exceptional, and the Company
for its part not treat this as a green light to depart from the
normal custom and practice for implementing shift change.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93621 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14260
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning.
(1) Redundancy in the Laboratory Department
(2) Change of Shift (Supervisors)
GENERAL BACKGROUND
2. The issues could not be resolved at local level discussions
and were referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on the 14th October 1993. As no
agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
on the 8th November, 1993. A Court hearing was held on the 19th
November, 1993.
Claim I: Redundancy - Laboratory Department
Background:
The Company employs 435 workers. It has sustained significant
trading losses over the past number of years and has implemented a
comprehensive restructuring programme which involves 109
redundancies in all departments. Management originally proposed
to make 5 workers redundant in the Laboratory Department.
Agreement has been reached between the parties on the
re-deployment of 4 of the workers as production operatives. The
Company requires one compulsory redundancy. The Union rejected
the Company's proposal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's overall redundancy requirement throughout
the plant amounts to 25% of the workforce yet it requires a
56% reduction in the Laboratory Section.
2. The duties of those workers remain and will have to be
undertaken by other staff. The work is specialised. Quality
will suffer if it is divided among less qualified workers and
there will be a downturn in demand for Company product. The
workers concerned could be retained to do this work rather
than be re-deployed at lower rates of pay.
3. The worker being made redundant does highly specialised
work which cannot be carried out by other laboratory workers
and she should be retained in her present position.
4. In the event of a compulsory redundancy the present
terms on offer (3 weeks inclusive of statutory entitlement)
should be increased.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Redundancies in all sections are essential if losses are
to be eliminated and profitability restored. Ongoing change
and flexibility in work practices are essential.
2. The Company's proposal to re-deploy four workers was
taken because henceforth all employees will have to take full
responsibility and be accountable for their own work in terms
of output and quality control testing.
3. The Company is forced to make one worker redundant. She
cannot be re-deployed. Her work will be divided amongst
other laboratory staff, and there is no suitable vacancy in
any other department.
Claim 2: Change of Shift - Supervisors:
Background:
As part of its rationalisation plan the Company requires one
redundancy from the Blending Department - a 2 shift post. Two
voluntary applications for redundancy have been received from the
Winding Department - a 3 shift post. The Company proposes to move
a supervisor from 2 shift in Blending to 3 shift in Winding.
Management also proposes to transfer a less senior supervisor to a
2 shift position. The Union rejects the Company's proposal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Custom and practice have always applied on previous
occasions whereby 2 shift and day posts have been filled by
the most senior supervisor.
2. Internal transfers of supervisors have taken place in
the past on the basis that supervisors were multipurpose in
their functions and therefore did not require special skills
to operate in certain departments.
3. While the Company has offered compensation to workers
moving from 2 to 3 shift, the present issue is not one of
monetary compensation but Management's decision to move a
very senior worker to night shift while a more junior worker
remains on 2 shift.
4. The Company should not require any supervisor to change
shift or re-organise supervisors as proposed. If
re-organisation is essential custom and practice must not be
ignored.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The transfer of the supervisor from days to 2 shift is
essential in order to retain that worker's special skills
accumulated over a wide range of products essential to the
Company's product range.
2. The 2 shift supervisor in the Blending Department is
required to transfer to fill a 3 shift vacancy in winding.
The re-organisation of these shifts as part of the Company's
rationalisation programme is essential to ensure the future
viability of the plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
Claim I - Compulsory Redundancy
In the circumstances that exist at present in the Company due to
implementation of the necessary rationalisation programme, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. The
Court would urge the Company in the event of any appropriate
vacancy arising in the future that the claimant be given first
option on the post.
Claim II - Change of Shift
The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's proposal
in this instance, which is considered exceptional, and the Company
for its part not treat this as a green light to depart from the
normal custom and practice for implementing shift change.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th November, 1993 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.