FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ITW HI-CONE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is an American multinational employing thirty-two people at its plant in Mallow, Co Cork. It proposes to make one of the three mechanical craftsmen redundant.
The Company argues that its cost base is significantly out of line with its competitors both within and outside the ITW group. It states that its primary market is in Spain and that the Cork plant is out of line with the Spanish plant. The redundancy is a necessary contribution to the overall Hi-Cone Europe restructuring programme.
The Union rejected the redundancy proposal and argues that it was feasible to find cost savings in a manner other than redundancy.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 7th of February, 2002, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th of February, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th of March, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company made no effort to avoid a redundancy situation and gave no consideration in relation to the manning levels in a post redundancy situation.
2. The worker suggested a reduction in his working pattern, i.e. 10 months a year. This would allow the Company to plan workloads and provide cover for illness and holidays.
3. The worker has given loyal service to the Company. He would prefer to stay in employment and protect his pension.
4. If the Company are not prepared to consider the workable alternatives, they should address the pension imbalance which the redundancy will have on the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The significant market changes which have occurred have left the Company with no options but to implement changes in order to remain competitive.
2. The reduction in manning levels in the maintenance department is necessary, taking into account the level of maintenance that currently exist in other plants within the Group.
3. The cost savings arising from the overall reductions in staffing levels at the Mallow plant is a necessary contribution to the overall Hi-Cone Europe restructuring programme.
4. The redundancy terms offered by the Company are competitive and generous
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is satisfied that a redundancy exists as outlined by the Company.
Given this situation, the Court recommends that the parties continue discussions to try to reach an agreement satisfactory to their requirements. These discussions should be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this recommendation.
If the parties fail to reach agreement, the Court will on request make a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th April, 2002______________________
LW/MBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.