FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOC GASES IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Headcount.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a leading supplier of industrial, medical and special gases to the Irish market. The Company operates three manufacturing sites in Ireland - Dublin, Cork and Belfast - and a number of distribution depots nationwide. The Company operates a large fleet of BOC-owned bulk liquid and cylinder delivery vehicles from its sites. The Company has 263 employees in the Republic of Ireland.
A dispute has arisen between BOC employees who are members of the SIPTU No.6 Branch (Cork) and the Company. It centres around the method of headcount reduction used -the fact of the necessity for headcount reduction is not in dispute between the parties.
The Company's contention is that it can reduce headcount by natural attrition and that it is not obliged to replace worker(s) departing by way of retirement or resignation when there is insufficient work available to justify replacement.
The Union rejects this and says that where there is an agreed headcount the workers leaving in such circumstances should be replaced. Numbers of drivers were reduced by agreement in 1994, 1999 and 2005, through the vehicle of voluntary redundancy.
The dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th August 2009, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on the 3rd December, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that there is no agreement between SIPTU and the Company regarding downsizing as a vehicle of attrition. The previously agreed manning levels must be honoured by the Company.
2. The Union contends that with impending retirements the manning agreements in place will be unenforceable. Attrition will lead to atypical employment.
3. No agreement exists between the Union and the Company regarding attrition. In 2005, following an agreed redundancy, the Company sought to have the matter resolved through disputes procedures as speedily as possible. They never pursued this matter and it was never subsequently placed on any agenda.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company maintains that given the current surplus manning in the business, headcount reduction through natural wastage amongst the manual employees is essential going forward.
2. The Company maintains that there are no established manning levels for each category of manual employee.
3.The Company accepts that headcount reduction through natural wastage is an emotive issue. However, the Company's primary responsibility to its workforce is to protect the maximum number of well-paid permanent jobs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union's claim that the Company has failed to honour a collective agreement for Drivers on headcount numbers which was agreed in 2005. This situation arose when the Company sought through the mechanism of natural wastage not to replace a Weekend Ferry Driver who was retiring in September 2009. The Company explained to the Court that the non-replacement was predicated by a recruitment freeze imposed by the Company's parent company to deal with the economic difficulties facing it in the current climate coupled with the downturn in the Company's business resulting in the retiring driver not needing to be replaced.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied with a series of clear and unambiguous agreements on manning levels have been in place over the years culminating in the last one in 2005 and the Court is of the view that the Company should honour it. However, the Court also recognises going forward that the Company needs to address the issue and it notes that the Union is willing to enter into discussions with the Company on the issue of manning levels.
Consequently, the Court recommends that both parties should enter into discussions as a matter of urgency to discuss how to address the issue of manning levels going forward and these discussions should take place within the Company/Union procedures already in place.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th December, 2009______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.