FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CROWN EQUIPMENT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMICUS-AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Redeployment of staff working on a Wheel Machine.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of materials handling equipment and employs 245 workers. The dispute relates to 10 employees working on a wheel machine production unit. The unit operates on a continuous basis over a seven day three cycle shift pattern. In July, 2002 the Company decided to cease operations of the wheel machine. It offered to redeploy the claimants with no loss of pay. The Union sought the retention of the current structure but this was rejected by Management. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 27th January, 2003. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 12th February, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants have operated the wheel machine unit as an autonomous group since 1994. The group was initially set up under a specific agreement covering conditions of employment separate and distinct from the general workforce.
2. The claimants have accepted sole responsibility for this process without the need for supervision. They have developed a family lifestyle around this shift pattern. They want to maintain their shift pattern while accepting the closure of the wheel machine.
3. The Union indicated it would accept a compromise arrangement whereby the claimants would accept a block of work and continue their current shift pattern.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company took a business decision to close the wheel machine operation. The operation was not economically viable.The only practical alternative was to redeploy the claimants.
2. It was not possible to concede the arrangement sought by the Union and it would not be possible or sensible to create a distinct unit with a degree of autonomy. The Company could not apply the arrangements that had applied to the wheel machine.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court could not support the claim for the continuation of a working arrangement, which is not economically viable. The Court understands that there is obviously a loss for the employees associated with the closure of the wheel operation working arrangements. Within the context of the company agreements the Court is of the view that this is a unique situation and therefore the Court recommends that discussions should take place between the parties on a compensation package appropriate to the loss in these circumstances.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st February, 2003______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.