Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94555 Case Number: AD9491 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED - and - SEVEN WORKERS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. CW263/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having heard all the arguments and considered the
written submissions, finds no reason to alter the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94555 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED
AND
SEVEN WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No.
CW263/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns seven workers who have been refused
redundancy by the Company.
The Company manufactures ladies fine-gauge hosiery, sold
mainly in the United Kingdom. The Company claims that the
hosiery market has declined by 30% since 1988. This resulted
in increasing short-time work in Killarney. In 1993, the
Company decided on a rationalisation plan to save the
Killarney plant. This involved a change of work practice and
the redundancies of 250 workers.
On 27th May, 1994, the Company issued a notice seeking the
redundancies. A total of 290 workers applied, leaving 40
workers who could not be accommodated. This included the
seven workers concerned who are made up of 4 knitters, 2
mechanical workers and a dyehouse operator. Changes in work
practices included switching from a shift-based operation to
a day-based operation, knitters changing from an 8-hour to a
12-hour day and mechanics changing from a 5-day week to a
4-day week.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 30th September, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation follows:-
"I recommend that the Union accepts that the Company
position is correct in this instance".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
21st October, 1994, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
8th December, 1994, in Tralee (the earliest date suitable to
the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was believed at the time of the redundancy notice
(May 1994) that the Company was in serious financial
difficulties and that all applicants for redundancy
would be successful.
2. The workers concerned did not ballot in favour of the
Company's changed work practices. They should not be
obliged to comply with them. Workers in the knitting
department are now earning less as a result of the
changes.
3. There are a number of workers at the plant who are
willing to switch from the option of redundancy to
replacing some of the workers concerned. This would
allow the workers concerned to take redundancy.
4. If the Company had acted in time, the dyehouse operator
could have taken redundancy as a number of workers were
prepared to carry out this function. The needle
mechanic was advised by his manager to apply for
redundancy. The day mechanic maintains that his job no
longer exists. The four knitters did not agree to do
the 12-hour shift they now work, as a result of changes
in work practices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had to seek the redundancies and introduce
the changes in work practices in order to survive. The
Company followed the standard practice for redundancy
i.e. seeking volunteers in the affected job category.
In the event of a shortfall of volunteers in a
particular job category, volunteers would be invited
from other comparable jobs.
2. Workers who were made redundant had longer service than
the 7 workers concerned. One of the dyehouse operators
who became redundant started work on the same day as the
dyehouse worker concerned. However, his interview and
offer of employment predate the worker concerned. All
day-based mechanics changed from a 5-day to a 4-day
week. This is not grounds for special redundancy
consideration. The 12 knitters in the Company,
including the 4 concerned, changed to 12-hour shifts,
averaging 39 hours per week. They work the same number
of hours and earn the same wages as previously.
3. Granting any of the 7 workers redundancy would have
resulted in other workers with longer service being
refused. This would be contrary to the Company's
redundancy selection which has operated for 20 years.
DECISION:
The Court, having heard all the arguments and considered the
written submissions, finds no reason to alter the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1994 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman