FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYSTEEL TEORANTA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Lay-offs/redundancies.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in September, 1992, following the purchase of the assets of the previous occupier. The Company is based at Inverin, Co. Galway and employees approximately 89 people. The main business of the Company is the fabrication of sheet metal, covering, punching, forming, welding and spray painting metal. The main customer base is in the computer, medical and telecommunications sectors.
The economic outlook for the fiscal year 2002 looked bleak for the first few months, in terms of both revenue and losses and the Company informed the Union of their intention to lay off 20 employees. On the 3rd of January, 2002, the Company made 20 employees redundant. The Union disputed the method of selection.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of February, 2002, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of March, 2002, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the interest of future industrial peace at the Company, it is essential that management engage with the union on any proposal for change.
2. In future, lay-offs/redundancies must be implemented on a last in first out basis.
3. Four people who were declared redundant have returned to the Company and have had their service broken and they are entitled to have their entire service recognised or adequate compensation should be given to them.
COMPANY’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has at all times kept its employees informed about the seriousness of the reduction in orders.
2. When it was no longer possible to protect the jobs of employees, the Company chose the tried and tested formula of last in first out, having due regard to the retention of key skills.
3. The Company did not breach the Company/Union agreement and acted in good faith at all times.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. In issuing notice of termination of employment to 20 employees, the Company has failed to comply with the terms of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977, which requires an exchange of information and consultation between an employer, employee representatives, and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, a full 30 days before the first dismissal in such circumstances. This is a serious matter and had such consultation taken place, it is very likely that the difficulties, which gave rise to this case, would have been avoided. The legislation is in place to deal with such situations. Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 1993, there is a requirement on employers to ensure that in selecting employees for redundancy, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unfair selection.
The Court is of the view that the Company also failed to comply with its own agreement relating to"Procedure in the Event of Lay Off or Redundancy"which stipulates that"discussions will take place with Shop Stewards and, if necessary, with the Union official, prior to lay-off or any redundancy."Secondly, the Company did not give sufficient notice of such terminations of employment in accordance with its procedures"the Union shall be informed as soon as it becomes apparent that such action will be necessary."The proposed redundancies should have been the first item on the agenda of the meeting on the 20th of December, 2001.
The Court notes the Company's commitment to honour the entire service of those employees who were made redundant in January, 2002, and who were subsequently re-employed in February, 2002.
The Court is of the view that the Union must accept that the Company, when facing lay offs or redundancies, should have the right to retain skilled/key employees, in the interests of maintaining the ongoing business.
Taking all of the above points into account, the Court recommends that both parties should accept the proposals of the Labour Relations Commission dated the 9th of January, 2002.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd April, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.