FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CPI IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Selection for Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to selection criteria for redundancy. The Company position is that it is restructuring its operations and redundancies are necessary. The Company is using the Last In First Out (LIFO) principle of selection while retaining the required skill sets going forward. The Union's position is that seniority within the grade/category and not service within the Company is the custom and practice in relation to redundancy selection.
The matter 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 2nd November, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th December, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The custom and practice within the Company has been to use seniority within the grade when making redundancy selection. The claimant in this case should not be selected for redundancy on the basis of his service within the Driver grade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The Company is applying LIFO to its redundancy selection process with a specific requirement to retain the appropriate skills set in its employees going forward. The drivers who are remaining in employment as well as the Silo Technician and Mechanic (who are also Drivers) all have greater service with the Company than the worker who is being selected for redundancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
In recommendation LCR 19275 the Court recommended that in the event of it being necessary to resort to compulsory redundancies selection should be on the basis of first in last out. That recommendation was accepted by both parties and now has the status of an agreement. The recommendation did not specify that selection be made from within specific groups although it must be accepted that for practical reasons skill requirements may have to be taken into account in certain circumstances.
In this case the employer has made a decision on who should remain and by implication, who should go. It is not the function of the Court to substitute its views on that question for that of an employer. Rather the Court's function is to consider if the employer acted within agreed procedures and observed agreed criteria in making the selection.
In this case the agreed criterion, arising from LCR 19275 is that of length of service. It is clear that the person selected for retention has longer service than that of the person selected for redundancy.
In these circumstances there is no basis upon which the Court could recommend any change to the employers decision.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th December 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.