FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KEMEK LTD (IRISH INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVES) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Number of redundancies, 2. Selection for redundancy, 3. Redundancy terms, 4. Proposed new driver / Shotfirer role and proposed terms and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to redundancy numbers, selection criteria and terms and the appointment of a new Driver/ Shotfirer and associated terms and conditions of employment.
The Company's position is that due to a downturn in quarrying and construction as well as increased competition from other explosives companies, it must seek redundancies from 10 drivers employed by the Company and achieve greater flexibilities from those remaining in employment.It contends to have offered very generous redunadancy terms and annualised hours salary.
The Union does not accept the Company's selection criteria and is seeking the application of Last In First Out (LIFO) where there are insufficient volunteers for the scheme. It also considers 10 redundancies to be excessive and is of the view that once the redundancies are achieved the Company intends to make further use of contractors in the future. The Union is also seeking a range of enhancements to the ex gratia element of the redundancies on the basis of the potential loss ofworker's future earnings.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 25th May, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th August, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 If there are insufficient volunteers for the redundancy package, the principle of LIFO should apply. In relation to the redundancy terms, the Union is seeking similar terms that are paid in comparable sectors and an enhancement of the ex gratia element of the package to take into account the future loss of earnings of the workers concerned.
2 The Company's proposal relating to annualised hours will effectively reduce the workers earnings by up to 50%. The salary suggested by the Company for the introduction of annualised hours is totally insufficient and unacceptable.
3Workers who do not avail of the redundancy package will be required to adapt to carry out the role of shotfirer. This role requires extensive experience and responsibility and all drivers are not sufficiently experienced/skilled to take it on.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company considers it appropriate to carry out a skills evaluation of the workforce to decide who would be retained and trained in the shotfirer role. In this case it is not appropriate to apply the principle of LIFO. In relation to the redundancy terms, the Company has put forward a very generous package of six weeks pay per year of service (PYOS) plus statutory entitlements with additional payments of €750 PYOS for early applicants and an additional ex gratia payment of €5k to recognise service in excess of 15 years.
2 To remain viable into the future, the Company must introduce a system of annualised hours with an appropriate salary level. This is necessary on the basis of the flexibilities required from the workforce and the additional roles that must be taken on going forward.
3 All workers who accept the annualised hours and who become shotfirers will receive the appropriate level of training for the responsibilities and technical requirements of the role. In addition, ultimate responsibility will rest with the explosives supervisor on site.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made to it by the parties and recommends as follows:-
- -Discussions should begin immediately on a system of annualised hours in accordance with Terms and Conditions proposed by the Company, but based on an annual inclusive salary of €65,000. The Court notes the Company's assurance that proper and complete training will be provided for those who accept these contracts in order to allow them to adopt the Driver/Shotfirer role. The Court also notes the Company's assertion that an explosives supervisor will carry ultimate responsibility for blasting work carried out.
-The Company's severance offer should remain but the cap on the ex-gratia element of the package should be raised by €20,000. There should be no disadvantage to those workers who have not signed up for the early sign up bonus. Redundancies should be achieved firstly on a voluntary basis and then on the basis of last in first out, subject to retention of essential balance of skills. The redundancies should be confined to the Enfield plant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
28th August, 2009.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.