FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYBIN SUPPORT SERVICES T/A MOMENTUM SUPPORT - AND - 30 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Reduction In Contract Hours / Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Maybin Support Services Trading As Momentum Support and SIPTU in relation to a proposed reduction of cleaning hours in Portiuncula Hospital, Ballinasloe, Co Galway.
Management's position is that it must reduce the amount of cleaning hours to ensure the viability of the contract going forward. It contends that when taking over the contract from another cleaning company in March, 2009, it was provided with incorrect information concerning the cleaning wage bill and now seeks to reduce the required number of hours (139 per fortnight) across all cleaning staff.
The Union is seeking redundancies as a method of reducing the required number of hours, which it claims was agreed with the Company to be 109 hours per fortnight. It is seeking 3 week's pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. It is also claiming that if the required number of hours are not achieved by the redundancies that the balance of hours would be shared equally amongst remaining staff.
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 27th July, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd September, 2009 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 It is unacceptable that management is attempting to make savings on its contract by reducing the earnings potential of its workforce. There have already been cuts imposed to those covering colleagues on annual leave and further cuts would be unsustainable.
2 Many of the workers are employed on a part time basis and work very few hours as it is. Further cuts in hours is not the way to resolve this issue. The Union is claiming an enhanced voluntary redundancy package that will achieve the savings required by the Company.
3 The Company informed the Union that in a situation where the required cuts were not agreed that it would implement compulsory redundancies on the basis of Last In First Out (L.I.F.O.) On that basis the Union is seeking that enhanced voluntary redundancy packages be offered instead.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is not willing to implement redundancies. In the current economic climate, the focus is on the protection of employment. In terms of a reduction in working hours, it would be as little as 30 minutes per week per worker
2 Management refute the Union's contention that it threatened to introduce compulsory redundancies. Throughout this dispute management has focused on protecting employment by spreading the cuts across all staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made to it by the parties, the Court recommends that they should re-engage as a matter of urgency with a view to agreeing reductions in working hours which would enable the Company to fulfill the contract in a competitive way. It should be noted that, in the case of some workers, a reduction in their hours may effectively lead to a redundancy situation - should this occur, any such redundancies should attract terms in line with those recently paid in the sector.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th October 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.