Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9513 Case Number: LCR14696 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a proposal by the Company to declare two workers redundant.
Recommendation:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions from the
parties and has taken into account the history of the dispute; the
Company's expressed need for rationalisation; the independent
expert's reports and the extensive conciliation which has taken
place.
Given the Union's commitment to co-operating with the proposed
changes, the Court considers that one final effort should be made
to reach agreement on the two proposed redundancies.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties resume
negotiations at local level. If agreement is not reached by 30th
April, 1995, it can be referred back to the Court which will issue
a recommendation on the substantive issue without a further
hearing.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9513 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14696
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a proposal by the Company to declare two
workers redundant.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was taken over by Fosters Brewing Group in
1987. As a result, the Company lost the Carlsberg
portfolio with the immediate loss of 45% of its sales
volume. In addition to other factors (details
supplied), this forced the Company to undertake a
rationalisation programme which involved the redundancy
of 105 of the Company' workers.
2. The Company required the reduction of 10 workers in the
administration area. Progress has been made on eight
voluntary redundancies. However, agreement could not be
reached on the elimination of the laboratory assistant's
position and one clerical position. The Company
proposed to achieve the reductions on a compulsory
basis.
3. The Union refused to consider the concept of compulsory
redundancies and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were
held on 21st April and 17th November, 1994. The IPC was
engaged to report on the situation. The IPC reported on
14th September, 1994, that the Company's proposed new
manning levels were workable.
4. The Union rejected the IPC report on the basis that it
included consideration of the Company's proposals in
terms of new work practices which had not been agreed
with the Union. No further progress could be made at
conciliation. On 5th January, 1995, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under the terms of Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 17th February, 1995 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In all of its negotiations with the Company, the Union's
position has been to accept rationalisation within the
Company which has involved voluntary redundancy, while
rejecting any compulsory redundancies. It is clear that
the only way forward is by negotiation and natural
wastage. This policy has worked well to date and no
compulsory redundancies have been forced upon any other
group within the Company.
2. The Union has accepted that there is not a full-time
position available for the Laboratory Assistant. In an
effort to be as flexible as possible, the Union has
proposed that the Laboratory Assistant could also
undertake the cleaning of the Laboratory as well as some
work within the brewery. With regard to the other
administrative worker, it should be noted that much of
the duties of administrative workers were transferred to
senior management. This is unacceptable to the Union
(details supplied).
3. The workers have co-operated fully with the Company's
rationalisation plan. At this stage, the Company has
achieved 80% of its requirements of the administrative
section. The Union rejects the Company's intention to
make the 2 workers redundant when there is work for them
to perform.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's rationalisation plans have been
implemented following a long negotiations process. In
the administrative section, 2 redundancies remain to be
effected. The Company's plans for the section have been
examined in detail by the IPC, an independent expert
body. The report submitted by the IPC consultants
clearly supports the Company's position.
2. The terms of reference for the IPC study were jointly
agreed. The Union cannot continue to query the basis
under which the study was completed.
3. The Company must secure the 2 redundancies. It is
obliged to run the Company in the most efficient and
cost effective manner, taking into account quality
considerations. The Company has made every effort to
resolve the dispute and its position has been
independently upheld as being fair and reasonable in the
circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions from the
parties and has taken into account the history of the dispute; the
Company's expressed need for rationalisation; the independent
expert's reports and the extensive conciliation which has taken
place.
Given the Union's commitment to co-operating with the proposed
changes, the Court considers that one final effort should be made
to reach agreement on the two proposed redundancies.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties resume
negotiations at local level. If agreement is not reached by 30th
April, 1995, it can be referred back to the Court which will issue
a recommendation on the substantive issue without a further
hearing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st March, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.