FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ISS IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Level of Redundancies, Selection Method, Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has a contract with Iarnrod Eireann for the cleaning of rail carriages at Connolly, Heuston and Drogheda Stations and at Bray/Fairview DART Station. Iarnrod Eireann has stated that it needs to make significant cost reductions and the Company agreed to reduce the contract value by €1.9 million over 3 years in order to retain the contract. In order to do so the Company will have to make a number of workers redundant, equal to 25.8 whole-time-equivalent posts (WTEs) - seven shifts = 1 WTE - spread out over the various stations (details supplied to the Court). The Company proposed redundancies on a last-in, first-out (LIFO) basis, with payment of 2 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory payments. The Company also made proposals on the "deep cleaning" of carriages plus a litter-pick operation at Bray. The Union is seeking 4 weeks' pay per year of service and that the redundancies be on a voluntary basis.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th February, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not involve the Union fully throughout the various meetings between the parties in regard to its cost-cutting measures. The Union does not believe that the Company has supplied enough evidence as to the value of the cuts needed.
2. The Company agreed to reduce the cost of the contract but now expects the workers to bear the burden of the cuts. This is not acceptable to the Union.
3. The Company expects the same level of service despite an overall reduction of 28.5 WTEs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Because of the recent economic difficulties in Ireland the Company's market has tightened significantly and profit margins have been steadily eroded (the Company supplied economic details to the Court).
2. The Company was given no choice in regard to the contract. It had to agree to reduce the value of it or lose the contract.
3. The redundancy offer of two weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory is well in excess of the norm in the contract cleaning industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the parties should met to discuss the Union's concerns for those employees affected by the impending changes which will result from the Company’s need to reduce its cost base.
These discussions should be based on clarifying the Company’s work requirements going forward in each of the locations with a view to providing the employees with as much information as possible. As part of this process the Company should give assurances to employees that they will report to ISS supervisors/managers and not to the client company and that should any difficulties arise with their work then such issues should be brought to the attention of ISS supervisors/managers. Furthermore, the Company should clarify the position regarding “deep cleaning” and given details of where and when it will be carried out and the impact such cleaning will have in the new work requirements.
The Court recommends that these discussions should commences without delay and be completed as soon as possible, in any event they must be completed no later than the end of March, 2010. Following on from these discussions the Court recommends that the Company should keep the Union informed of any developments which are likely to impact on the claimants work requirements as soon as such information becomes available.
In relation to the Company’s need to reduce its employee numbers the Court upholds the Company’s redundancy selection criteria of “last in first out” and recommends that the Union should accept it. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the Company should improve its ex-gratia redundancy offer by the payment of a sum equivalent to the rebate applicable to each individual employee’s redundancy payment.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th March, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.