FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABBEY THEATRE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION (BATU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Closure of the workshop
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Theatre's proposed closure of its workshop which builds and repairs sets used in the Abbey's productions, and involves four Union members. The closure is part on an overall restructuring which the Theatre feels is necessary if it is to remain financially viable. It cited a cut in grants from the Arts Council. In July, 2009, the Theatre met with two unions - SIPTU and BATU - and non-union representatives to present its restructuring plan, including outsourcing of work from the workshop. When agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions (LRC). A number of conciliation conferences took place in 2009/2010, and in January, 2010, a proposal by the LRC which included an enhanced redundancy settlement was accepted by SIPTU. This would involve the loss of 26 full-time-equivalent positions and the closure of the workshop. BATU, however was not agreeable to the proposal and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th February, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have consistently participated in changes in the Abbey Theatre throughout their employment. The Union was willing to look at a number of alternative solutions - shorter working weeks, demarcation in the workplace, and cost reduction in pensions, overtime and rates but the Theatre refused to engage with it.
2. The Union believes that there will be enough work in 2010 to keep the members in the workshop busy between building new sets and rebuilding damaged sets (details supplied to the Court).
THEATRE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Theatre must restructure if it is to remain economically viable. No further funding is available form the Department of Arts, Tourism and Sport nor from the Arts Council. The Theatre will receive €2.5 million less in grants from the Arts Council in 2010 than it did in 2009.
2. The Theatre allowed both unions to review its financial situation and, following this, agreement was reached with SIPTU on restructuring measures, including seven of its members in the workshop facing redundancy.
3. The financial savings from closure of the in-house workshop, leasing the workshop and outsourcing the work will be in the region of €600,000 for 2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns management’s proposal to close the Theatre’s workshop resulting in four carpenters been made redundant. Management offered to pay enhanced redundancy terms, which emanated from negotiations under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission with a different Union representative of various grades within the Theatre, including 7 in the workshop. However, BATU did not accept the proposals.
Management put forward a restructuring plan affecting all employees of the Theatre, in an effort to ensure the continued viability of its operation. The necessity for such came about as a result of the significant cuts in the funding provided by the Arts Council, which had been steadily declining in the past three years and a discontinuation of a three year funding arrangement. In such circumstances the Theatre was compelled to review its entire operation. The Department of Arts, Tourism and Sports has confirmed that the Theatre will not be bailed out and it will have to live within its means and“restructure and rationalise accordingly”. In such circumstances, management proposed to outsource its workshop requirements and close the in-house workshop.
BATU sought to retain the workshop and protect the employment of the four carpenters involved by finding an alternative solution for the foreseeable future.
Having given careful consideration to the positions of both sides, the Court accepts that management has no alternative in the current financial circumstances but to take whatever steps are necessary to reduce its costs and, in such circumstances, outsourcing its workshop will yield significant savings. Furthermore, from the submissions of both parties, the Court is not satisfied that an alternative solution can be found in the current circumstances.
The Court is of the view that the enhanced redundancy terms as outlined in Appendix 1 of management’s submission is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Union should accept that the Theatre’s workshop will now proceed to close and the enhanced redundancy terms on offer should be accepted by the four claimants involved.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th March, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.