FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SEMPERIT SALES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Retention of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's Dublin office is one of seven regional offices throughout Ireland and the United Kingdom, which deals with sales and marketing. On 7th June, 1996, the Company announced its intention to establish one central sales and marketing office at its London headquarters from November, 1996. As a result two jobs in telesales, one in marketing and one supervisory position will become redundant. The four employees were given the option of relocating to London or of accepting the same redundancy package as that offered to the employees in the Semperit tyre factory, which is closing in December, 1996. The terms of the package offered are four weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlement. The Union objects to the transfer of work to the UK and is seeking retention of employment for two of the staff. First refusal on the telesales jobs if they are transferred back to Ireland within the next two to three years is also sought for the remaining two staff.
The issue was the subject of a conciliation conference on 7th October, 1996 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing was held on 24th October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Much of the work carried out by the two telesales employees is exclusive to the Irish economy, and it defies logic that the relocation to London will save money and will give a more efficient service to customers. The Company should give a guarantee that if the jobs are re-constituted in Ireland within 2/3 years, the staff currently employed will get first refusal on re-employment.
2. In February, 1996, the Marketing Co-ordinator who has been employed by the Company for 21 years, was requested to transfer the majority of her work to a newly recruited employee and to concentrate on a new job specification. The Company now proposes to make her redundant, yet still retain the services of the junior staff member. The employee should be allowed to continue the role given to her in February as the nature of the work dictates that it will have to be performed by a person located in Ireland. Alternatively, she should be restored to her former role.
3. In April, 1993, the Warehouse Supervisor was transferred to the post of Sales Office Supervisor. He was given a written guarantee that he would "suffer no loss of employment arising directly or indirectly from the move" yet the Company now proposes to make him redundant. The Company has contracted out the warehouse function, yet in the UK the position of Warehouse Supervisor is held by a direct employee. The Company should honour their responsibility to him and restore him to his previous post of Warehouse Supervisor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following a review of the Company's operations, management at the highest level within Sales decided that the changing needs of customers and of the organisation would best be served by the elimination of the regional offices and the establishment of one central office. This decision was not negotiable.
2. To facilitate discussions, the changeover date has been deferred to the end of November, 1996. Local management supports the changes and has been instructed to implement the re-organisation as smoothly and as cost effectively as possible. The severance package offered to the four staff will cost the Company approximately £120,000.
3. The Sales Office Supervisor cannot be re-appointed to his previous job as Warehouse Supervisor, as the warehousing function has been contracted out to another company. The letter which issued to him in 1993 was issued in good faith by the Company, who could not have envisaged the current re-organisation. The severance package on offer to the workers is a fair and reasonable one and information seminars will be available if required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:-
(1)Telesales Personnel:It is recommended that written guarantees be issued to the effect that if the jobs are relocated in Ireland in the future the existing
employees be given first refusal;
(2)Marketing Co-ordination:It is the view of the Court that the job in question
has changed in nature and because of this the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim;
(3)Sales Office Supervisor:The Court is of the opinion that the letter of comfort
held by the former Warehouse Supervisor gave him a reasonable
expectancy of job security well into the future. It is reasonable therefore,
in the view of the Court, that consideration should be given in the form of
compensation and that the parties should meet to negotiate an appropriate
solution to this problem.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
4th November, 1996______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.