FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALUCOLOR LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINT FEDERATION) - AND - THE GRAPHICAL, PAPER AND MEDIA UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Walsh |
1. Dispute concerning a Company proposal to make 2 workers redundant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 6 workers, 4 qualified and 2 trainees, in the foil-stamping department. It proposes to make 2 workers redundant on the grounds that the department had been enlarged in anticipation of a contract that did not materialise and, accordingly, workers in the area are under-utilised. The Company also states that it is not possible to continue to find work in other areas to take up the workers' slack time. The Union's position is that the 6 workers are gainfully employed and also assist in other areas, as required. It has difficulty in reconciling the Company's proposal with the fact that it has taken on apprentices in other areas. One apprentice was taken on in the Litho area and a vacancy has been advertised in the Bindery area. The Union claims that this position should be offered to one of the trainees in the foil-stamping department. The Company states that it would accept applications from trainees for the apprenticeship vacancy and advised that applicants would have to meet criteria set by FAS and also that lower rates apply for apprenticeships.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 27th of November, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th of December, 1996.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company increased the manning in the foil-stamping department from four persons to six in the belief that it would capture part of the Bailey's Irish Cream liquor label contract. This contract did not materialise.
2. The Company did not immediately dismiss or designate persons in this area for redundancy even though the area was grossly over-manned. The Company sought replacement work. The work is specialised and the Company competes in a very limited market. Unfortunately, it was not possible to secure an alternative contract.
3. For a considerable period of time, and at present, the foil-stamping department is under utilised by 30%. Although the Company is seeking two redundancies there is a need for more than two.
4. The Company, in the context of a proposed re-organisation involving, among other things, crewing arrangements, made an earnest attempt to use redeployment as a means to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, agreement could not be reached on this issue.
5. The Company has adhered to procedures within the meaning of the Printing JIC and general good industrial relations practice. The Union, as with other unions in the printing industry, has a stated policy of "no compulsory redundancy". The net effect of this policy is to deny the Company its legal right to declare redundancies within the meaning of the Redundancy Act. Allied to this is the contradictory position of the Union which has stated there was no need for redundancies, yet at the same time was actively encouraging the Company to agree to make two printers' helpers redundant (for a substantial amount of money) and give their positions to the two foil stampers.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company awarded an apprenticeship to a new recruit and has continued to use trainees on a flexible basis. A machine is being upgraded at present and it would appear that the Company intends to expand its gold-blocking capacity.
2. The redundancies are not an established position and there is sufficient employment for all of GPMU members in the foil-stamping and gold-blocking departments (details supplied).
3. Recently there has been the requirement for the working of overtime in the foiling/stamping department.
4. If voluntary redundancies cannot be achieved, the Union would seek short-term work, or rotation, to enable the trainees to complete their 2-year training periods ( To date, they have completed approximately 18 months and 16 months, respectively).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all the information before it, the Court is satisfied that a redundancy situation exists in this Company.
However, in the circumstances surrounding this case, the Court recommends that the Company accepts the Union offer to work short time or rotational work in order to facilitate the completion of the trainees' 2-year period. On completion of the 2-year training period, the two trainees to accept that they are redundant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th December, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.