FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BECTON DICKINSON PENEL LIMITED IRISH BRANCH, TRADING AS BD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures medical devices, is US based and employes 28,000 worldwide with an annual revenue of $7 billion. In Ireland it employes 480 at three locations and at its facility in Drogheda it manufactures the Lancet Kit for the Japanese market. The small kits of product are inspected and assembled by hand. This activity was previously outsourced to the Rehabilitation Institute but was transferred into the facility 14 years ago along with the staff. The dispute concerns the decision by the Company to close the Kitting Department and outsource any remaining kitting activity, thus rendering the kitting staff redundant.
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 26th October, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th November,2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that making the six Kitting staff redundant is unfair, it is an irregular selection process and is not in accordance with the 1986 Agreement.
2 All Employees within the Kitting Department have the same contract ofemployment as other staff and therefore should be treated in the same manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. Kitting is not the only Department impacted. There are six other roles within the organisation being eliminated in this process, with the consequent redundancy of the job holders.
2. The Company is not in a position to offer the Kitting Department staff suitable alternative roles within the organisation as it has become much more automated in recent years.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case. The Court notes that the issue referred to it is very narrow in nature and relates only to the interpretation of the "Redundancy" Provision of the Collective Agreement.
The provision is quite short, 34 words in total.
The Court has examined the wording of the provision and finds that the procedure to be followed in the event of a redundancy situation arising affecting the category of staff covered by the Collective Agreement is as follows: -
1) Temporary Employees will be laid off first.
2) Thereafter all staff will be offered the opportunity to apply for consideration for redundancy
3) In the event that the number of Workers applying for consideration for redundancy exceeds the number required the Company will select from amongst those who have applied.
4) In the event that the number of Workers applying for consideration for redundancy does not meet the numbers required the Company will effect the balance of the number of redundancies needed on the basis of seniority within the plant.
The agreement makes no provision for any other arrangement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th December, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.