Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93452 Case Number: LCR14199 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: JAMONT IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the redundancy of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
It appears to the Court that the manner in which this issue was
dealt with by management was not conducive to developing or
maintaining good industrial relations.
However, the Court, given all the circumstances of the case does
not find grounds to concede the Union's claim and accordingly
rejects it.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93452 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14199
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: JAMONT IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the redundancy of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures paper products and has been part of a
major European consumer products group since 1990. It comprises
24 plants including 2 in Larne, Northern Ireland and 1 in Finglas,
Co. Dublin. The Dublin plant employs approximately 180 workers.
The Company is in the process of cutting costs with a view to
improving its competitiveness in relation to its own United
Kingdom plants and other manufacturers. The dispute has arisen
following Union rejection of the Company's proposal to make one
Engineer redundant. The Company has its Central Engineering
Resource (3 Engineers) in Larne which management believes has the
capacity to carry out the work currently being carried out by the
Engineer based in Dublin. The Union contends that the redundancy
is unjustified and that the Company is attempting to "get rid" of
the worker because of his Trade Union/Political activities. The
dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference on the 15th
of July, 1993 at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of August, 1993, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 31st of August,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During negotiations in 1992 the Company and the Union
reached agreement 'across the board' within the section
represented by the Union. Although initially the Company had
proposed one redundancy in the administration area, this
proposal was subsequently dropped. The changes agreed covered
all workers represented by the Union. The Company did not
indicate at any stage during the negotiations that it would
subsequently seek the redundancy of the Maintenance Engineer.
2. The Company has stated that the worker was not
specifically mentioned in the Company/Union agreement because
he is regarded as part of management. This is refuted on the
grounds that his position is exactly the same as the
Production Supervisor's within the management structure
(details supplied to the Court), and specific proposals
affecting that grade formed part of the settlement on
re-organisation.
3. The proposed redundancy is not a genuine redundancy. It
is strange that a member of the management team was not
consulted concerning redundancy in his area, an area where he
could identify where savings could be achieved. The Dublin
plant has 11 lines, 7 of which are high-maintenance lines and
as the main objective of the Maintenance Engineer is the
reduction of down-time, the proposed redundancy is impossible
to sustain. The Wrexham plant has only two high maintenance
lines and retains one engineer, Larne has three lines and one
engineer and Sheffield (comparable in size to Dublin) has ten
lines with 5 engineers.
4. The worker's position is being made 'redundant' because of
the worker's Trade Union/political activities (details
supplied to the Court). He is perceived by the Company as a
threat to the continued industrial relations stability in the
Company. The Union believes that the worker is entitled to
pursue issues, provided normal long-established channels of
communication and procedures are observed. It is unacceptable
that because of his active pursuance of this course that his
job should be in jeopardy.
5. It appears that the Company has been actively seeking a
replacement for the worker through contacts with Recruitment
Agencies (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the recent review of the Company's
Engineering structure it has been decided that the position of
Maintenance Engineer in Dublin is surplus to Company
requirements. The Central Engineering resource in Larne has
the capacity to service the Dublin plant as well as the two
plants in Larne.
2. The revised all-Ireland Engineering structure (details
supplied to the Court) is in line with changes that have taken
place in other Company function (details supplied). It is
inevitable where two separate trading companies that
previously competed against each other are amalgamated, that
there initially will be a duplication of resources. It is
fundamental to the viability and survival of manufacturing in
both Dublin and Larne that the benefits of the all-Ireland
operation are fully utilised to enable the Company to be
competitive against U.K. and other international competitors
who have the benefit of economy of scale.
3. The Company has the right to re-organise and re-structure
its manpower resources in the best interests of the security
of employment of the workplace as a whole. All
rationalisation carried out by the Company to date has been
absolutely necessary.
4. It is wrong to suggest that Engineering re-structuring is
being carried out because the Company wants to be rid of the
worker in question due to his Trade Union/Political
activities. The Company is concerned only with the
performance by its staff of their duties. What the staff do
outside of the job is of no interest to the Company.
5. The worker was part of the management team and was not
covered by the agreement concerning re-organisation which was
reached with the Union. The worker did not receive the 6% pay
increase which was provided for in the same agreement.
6. The Union's contention that the Company is actively seeking
to replace the worker is groundless. There is not and has not
been any attempt made to engage another Maintenance Engineer.
C.Vs received by the Company from recruitment agencies are
routinely circulated by the agencies to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
It appears to the Court that the manner in which this issue was
dealt with by management was not conducive to developing or
maintaining good industrial relations.
However, the Court, given all the circumstances of the case does
not find grounds to concede the Union's claim and accordingly
rejects it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
24th September, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.