FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the redundancy of two drivers at the North Mall Distillery in Cork. Due to economic circumstances the Company decided to close the plant with effect from 22nd April, 2004 and all workers were declared redundant. The two drivers do not accept that their positions are redundant. The Union claims that the drivers are entitled to retain their respective jobs on a personal basis. It cites Labour Court Recommendation 9650 and clarification of 29th September, 1987 in support of its claim. The Company rejected the Union's claim. 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 in April, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 27th May, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under LCR 9650 the two drivers at North Mall have the right to retain their positions as drivers on a personal basis. They have considerable experience as drivers and wish to remain in the employment.
2. The Company still employs a number of drivers at various sites who continue to retain the right to their jobs on a personal basis.
3. The two drivers could be assigned to the Midleton and Landbridge sites where contractors are currently employed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company takes the view that under LCR9650 and subsequent clarification, the drivers hold their positions on a personal to holder basis until they depart the Company's service, be that voluntarily or as a consequence of redundancy.
2. There is a precedent in place in relation to the closure of distribution operations in Galway in 2000. With that closure the drivers and helpers were made redundant and the distribution was moved to contract.
3. It is not feasible for the Company to employ the drivers at the Landbridge or Midleton sites.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union requested the Court to give an interpretation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9650 issued in 1985. The Union is of the understanding that this recommendation along with the clarification given on 29th September, 1987, bestows a right on drivers to remain as drivers on a personal basis and that this right continues to exist today. The Company is of the view that the recommendation does not grant the drivers the right to a job for life, that the drivers hold these jobs on a personal basis, until they depart the Company either on a voluntary basis or, as a consequence of redundancy - as in the present situation, due to the closure of the North Mall plant.
Having considered LCR No: 9650 and the clarification issued in 1987, the Court is of the view that the Labour Court recommendation does not guarantee a job for life with the Company as regard must be given to the prevailing circumstances. Given the closure of the North Mall plant on 22nd April, 2004, the Court is of the view that such circumstances fundamentally change the right to retain driving duties on a personal basis as interpreted by the Union.
However, on the issue of the redundancy of the two drivers in question, the Court is of the view that insufficient discussions took place between the parties prior to the announcement of these redundancies. The Union questions whether a genuine redundancy exists and submits that gainful employment on a full time basis could be made available to the two drivers. Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that before any action is taken, further discussions should take place between the parties to consider the feasibility of such employment. The Court recommends that these discussions should be completed within four weeks of the date of this recommendation. If the issue is not resolved at that point, the parties may seek a definitive recommendation from the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st June, 2004______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.