FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MC KEON STONE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning the selection of a worker for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of stone products and employs over 40 workers between its plants in Stradbally and Kilkenny. The worker concerned commenced employment as a mechanic on the 27th May, 1985 and received notice of redundancy on 22nd March, 1996. His employment was terminated on the 3rd May, 1996. The worker together with another worker was employed in the Company's maintenance section in Stradbally. The Union claimed that the worker concerned was unfairly selected and that his co-worker, with less service, was retained in the employment. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 14th May, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th August, 1996. A Court hearing was held in Portlaoise on the 27th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is senior in service to the worker who was retained. He has the competence, experience, skill and ability to deal with any maintenance at the plant.
2. Prior to the arrival of the other worker, all maintenance at the plant was undertaken by the worker. No new plant, of such technical complexity as to place the work beyond the claimant's competence, has been installed.
3. The Company intimated the possibility of work being offered to the claimant on a part time basis. The Union contended that the redundancy was not established or proved and the notice should be withdrawn. The purchase of new forklifts was not a compelling reason for redundancy in itself. Discussions should have centred on work reorganisation not redundancy.
4. The worker concerned is a qualified fitter with considerable experience. He has an excellent record in the employment. The worker was issued with notice of redundancy without prior consultation either with him or his union representative. The worker has been treated unfairly and unjustly. The Union seeks his reinstatement in his original post without interruption of service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's position was made redundant due to the re-organisation of the Company's maintenance function and the purchase of new forklift trucks. The employment of two mechanics could not be sustained.
2. The worker was selected for redundancy on the basis of the Company retaining essential skills. The retained worker is both a fabricator and mechanic. The Company could not afford to be without a craftsman who would fabricate spare parts for machinery as well as carry out duties of a mechanic. The claimant was employed as a mechanic and did no fabrication work for the Company.
3. There is no precedent for payment of enhanced redundancy packages in the Company or in the industry. Statutory redundancy is the norm. In the past four years there have been nine redundancies in the Company. No enhanced redundancy payments were made.
4. The payment of enhanced redundancy to the claimant would be contrary to Clause 6 of the P.C.W.
5. The Company has offered to give the claimant an on-call contract where he would be paid on a price per hour or price per job basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that a redundancy situation existed in the Company. However, the Court finds that the manner of termination of employment and the method of selection was unsatisfactory. The Court recommends that the Company pay the employee an ex-gratia payment the equivalent of 3 months pay, in final settlement of this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th December, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.