FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancies
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case concerns five forklift drivers engaged in the bonded warehouse/bottling hall in Fox and Geese in West Dublin, and the Company's decision to make them redundant. (One of the five drivers is on long-term sick leave). The Company's case is that it must replace the forklift operation with automation for reasons of efficiency.
Following the restructuring of the Fox and Geese site in 2006 management made a number of proposals to the method of operation. Following a number of changes the Company decided in early 2008 that only three drivers were needed. In April, 2008, the Company made a proposal with the following options:
1. A redundancy package for all five drivers.
2. A flexible working arrangement whereby the 5 Bond FLT Drivers would alternate between bottling and forklift driving depending on the level of activity in either operation. A redundancy package would be offered to 2 bottling hall operatives.
The redundancy package was statutory redundancy and 6 weeks pay per year of service ex gratia payments.
The five workers opted not to select either option and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th August, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th October, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The five workers wish to retain their jobs in the Company. The Union believes that there are forklift driving duties on site even if there is a reduction in these duties.
2. The workers are reluctant to take redundancy in the present uncertain economic situation. Because of their age profile (average age of 50) they would find it difficult to get work elsewhere.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During September/October, 2008 the Company has monitored the Bond Area on 223 occasions. Evidence shows that at this stage the system works effectively with 2 forklift drivers.
2. The current manning level is maintained only due to inefficiency and inflexibility. The workers concerned have refused to engage with the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Company’s proposals to automate the fork lift operation in the Bonded Warehouse and eliminate five Fork Lift Driver positions.
The Union opposed the Company’s proposal to eliminate the Fork Lift Driver positions.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that in the circumstances presented there are genuine grounds for the elimination of the five Fork Lift Driver positions and upholds the Company’s position in that regard. However, the Court recommends that the parties should immediately engage with a view to considering both redeployment options for the five employees involved within the Company as a whole and/or voluntary redundancy options. These options should be fully exhausted before the Company implements compulsory redundancies in respect of the five positions.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th November, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.