FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LUFTHANSA SHANNON TURBINE TECHNOLOGIES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Selection criteria for compulsory redundancy programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was initially founded in 1991 and was purchased by Lufthansa Technik in 1996. It is involved in the repair of aircraft engine turbine components and currently employs 168 workers.
On the 4th of June, 2003, management met with the Union to announce that a total of 29 jobs were being declared redundant as a result of ongoing losses. Twenty of these positions were in the direct workforce. SIPTU sought that the redundancies would be on a voluntary basis, with selection based on last in, first out (LIFO). Management stated that LIFO could apply but subject to the retention of key skills. By the 7th of July, 2003, only 8 applications for voluntary redundancy had been received.
A number of conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commission took place. On the 15th of October, 2003, the Company announced that a further 10 redundancies were needed, and that it intended to close the voluntary redundancy package on offer of 3.5 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. The current situation is that the Company is seeking 14 compulsory redundancies. Its key concern is in relation to the selection criteria in the LPT Vane Production area, where 11 processors worked prior to the redundancies being announced.
As the parties could not reach agreement at the conciliation conferences , the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of August, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, although a further conciliation took place on the 15th of October, 2003. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of November, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The position of LIFO is a well-established principle within the trade union movement.
2. The processors are highly skilled, flexible operators and are often asked to move from area to area. The Union believes that minimal training will be required for them to move into the LPT Vane team.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Adopting the criteria of LIFO without reference to retaining key skills would result in extremely serious operational difficulties for the business. Application of LIFO in the LPT Vane team would result in 5 out of 11 employees leaving. It would be impossible to train 5 new members into this team.
2. It takes on average 4 months to obtain an LPT Vane Product code. In the area of inspection it can take up to 13 months to become fully qualified in one code. The Company rejects the Union's contention that employees could easily fill in vacant positions in the LPT Vane area.
3. The Company did offer to have an independent third party review the situation but this was rejected by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties regarding the basis on which employees should be selected for compulsory redundancy.
Having regard to the requirement to maintain core skills within the enterprise, the Court recommends that the Union should accept that selection will be on the basis proposed by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th November, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.