FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH CABLE AND WIRE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning the concept of, and selection for, redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1971 and is based in Athlone, currently employing a staff of 97. It is engaged in the manufacture of copper cable for the construction and power industries. The Company was taken over by Alcatel Cable of France in 1991. As part of ongoing rationalisation, which commenced in late 1994, the Company is seeking to reduce the number of Team Managers from 3 to 2. Arising from this the night shift will be supervised by a chargehand who will incorporate supervisory duties into his normal duties. The package available is as follows:
(i) Redundancy at Company formula, or
(ii) Reversion to a shop floor position plus compensation at twice the normal loss.
The Company stated that it unsuccessfully sought a volunteer among the 3 Team Managers and, subsequently, selected one of the 3 on the grounds that, although an excellent worker, his supervisory skills were not as good as those of his colleagues. The 3 have similar service with the Company, the selected Manager having commenced with the Company in February 1972, and his colleagues in April and June, 1972 respectively.
The Union contends that no redundancy situation exists and that the chargehand would not be able to perform the supervisory duties adequately. The Union also argues that the Manager who was selected should not have been, as he has the longest service. The Union is of the view that the entire process is a means of "getting rid" of the Manager selected.
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 25th of April, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 7th of June, 1996.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company sought volunteers, as normal, for redundancy. As none came forward, the Company reserved the right to choose. It was of paramount importance for the Company to ensure that the best skills and abilities were retained. The Company made its selection accordingly.
2. The selected worker has very little service additional to that of his colleagues. He was selected for redundancy because of his inferior supervisory skills. On occasion, it had been necessary to give him verbal warnings about his performance (details supplied to the Court).
3. A genuine redundancy situation exists. There is currently a huge surplus of manufacturing capacity in the industry and within the Group for the range of products produced in Athlone.
4. No difficulty is envisaged in the redundant Manager's duties being performed by a chargehand. Recently, the factory ran successfully on a reduced shift during a period when all 3 Managers were on holidays. Additionally, a training course is being taken by all staff which will lead to their being able to supervise their own jobs in future.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. This is not a genuine redundancy situation. The Company is merely using the device of redundancy to dismiss the worker in question.
2. Such a dismissal, if it were to proceed, would be unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Act for many reasons, including:
- (i) The worker is the Company's longest-serving employee.
- (iii) The Company has made vague accusations against the Manager but at no time has it taken any formal disciplinary action against him thus denying him his natural rights to defend himself or correct himself, in the full knowledge of the consequences.
- (i) The worker is the Company's longest-serving employee.
3. At the same time as the Company officially informed the Union of the redundancy, it announced that it intended to select the candidate. The Company did not consider "last in first out", nor did it request volunteers.
4. There is no justifiable redundancy. If the selected worker is made redundant, his place will be taken by a chargehand who will have to carry out the same job, probably, for a lesser rate of pay for a respectable period, until it becomes safe to upgrade him.
5. It is unreasonable of the Company to state that it plans to dispense with the position of Production Team Manager on the night shift. The job is actually over-stretched at present.
6. The night shift is especially unsuited for redundancy in such a position as, during the day-shift, there is the available cover of a Production Manager and a General Manager as back up. The Production Team Manager carries sole responsibility, with no back-up.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
Given that all 3 Team Managers have approximately the same length of service, the Company, in the absence of any application for voluntary redundancy, had, unfortunately, to decide whom to select for redundancy.
The Court is satisfied that the basis for selection, in the circumstance, was not unfair.
The Court recommends that the implementation of this decision be held for 1 month from the date of the Court Recommendation, to allow for the possibility of a volunteer for redundancy.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
28th June, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.