FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Method of selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1995 the Company carried out a review of its Irish operation called AVA - Activity Value Analysis and TOP - Transforming Operational Performance. Various changes in work practices, flexibility and training were required in addition to 49 redundancies. A Labour Court hearing on 4th October, 1996 (LCR 15336) dealt with the issue of redundancy terms and a buyout of overtime earnings.
The current dispute concerns the method of selection for voluntary redundancy. The Union claims that selection should be based purely on seniority while the Company maintains that it must have the right to refuse volunteers in order to retain staff with key skills. The Company has refused applications for voluntary redundancy on behalf of 3 distribution staff on the grounds that there are no driver redundancies, that driving is a key skill and that there are no trained replacement drivers available.
The Company's refusal to grant voluntary redundancy to the drivers resulted in a ballot in favour of industrial action which began on 8th January, 1997. The parties were invited to a conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission on 20th January, 1997 at which the Industrial Relations Officer put forward a proposal which was accepted by both parties. As a result the staff returned to work on 23rd January, 1997 and the issues in dispute were referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 10th February, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Seniority should apply throughout the company across all departments. The drivers' claims to seniority have been denied by Management on the grounds that the AVA/TOP document does not directly affect drivers. Clauses 26, 27 and 28 refer specifically to drivers and to the distribution area.
2. The Company has not lived up to its responsibilities with regard to training and development of employees' skills, despite Union requests. For the past two years the Company has ignored two employees' requests for training as drivers. If redundancy is offered to the current drivers they are willing to remain in the company until their replacements are properly trained.
3. Initially the Company issued estimations of the redundancy amounts due to the drivers, yet at a later date informed them that they were not eligible. One particular employee who was a full time fork lift driver and a relief transport member was refused recognition as a full time driver for the past few years. However, following his application for redundancy, the Company appointed him as a permanent driver without any consultation and refused his application for redundancy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company must have the right to retain employees with key skills to ensure the future viability of the business. Commercial driving is a recognised key skill in terms of driving competency, efficiency and the type of licence required. It would take approximately 18 months to train a driver to the required safety and legal standards.
2. It has been accepted custom and practice that the distribution section has always been dealt with entirely separately from the rest of the business. This is also the case in other distribution areas of the company where employees are represented by other unions.
3. Under the current AVA/TOP review programme, which was carried out in a transparent and participative way, there are no redundancies required within the distribution area.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the Court can understand the Company requirement to retain key skills in a voluntary redundancy situation, the fact that employees within the Company definition of key skills were given redundancy figures for consideration, was less than helpful. Similarly, the promotion of an individual after a lengthy period of relief, thus eliminating him from eligibility for voluntary redundancy, seems unfair.
The Court accepts the need to retain key skills but also finds that the Union request to have extra people trained for key areas' relief is not unreasonable.
The Court accepts the Company position in this present situation but recommends that the Company train some back-up personnel for key areas, to prevent further situations where people cannot be considered for redundancy.
The Court further recommends that the employee recently promoted be given consideration for voluntary redundancy given the background to his promotion.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
28th February, 1997______________________
D.G./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.