FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MEITHEAL FORBARTHA NA GAELTACHTA TEO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. 1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Meitheal Fobartha na Gaeltachta Teo and the Union in relation to redundancies. The organisation has suffered a reduction in funding in recent times and has given notice of redundancies required at its Rosmuc office in order to cut costs and retain vital future funding from Pobal.
The Union's position is that the cuts were not implemented fairly and that the redundancies should not be confined to Rosmuc. It further contends that vacancies arose within the organisation that were not offered to the workers prior to the issuing of redundancy notification and that workers were never offered the option of relocation within the organisation.
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 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th August, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The redundancies are being confined to Rosmuc yet there is enough revenue being created to enable the workers to remain in employment. If redundancies are required, they should be advertised throughout the organisation on a voulntary basis based on seniority.
2 The Union was never informed of the deficit that exists in the Company and management did not enter into discussions in relation to its financial position. It decided unilaterally to implement redundancies in the Rosmuc area without considering its proven financial vaibility or the needs of the service users in that area.
3 A commitment has been given that front line services will be protected in the current climate yet it is the education and community development officers that are all being made redundant from the one location. These workers are needed to ensure the success of the organisation and the continued provision of this service to the community in Rosmuc.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management must implement the redundancies in order to retain vital funding and protect employment into the future. It is not possible to use the Last In First Out (LIFO) principle of redundancies as there are certain roles that must be retained irrespective of seniority.
2 Management has tried to save as many jobs as possible yet it has been clearly informed by Pobal that if it cannot reduce its cost base, its funding will be restricted to a month by month basis. Eventually if the situation does not improve all employment in the organisations will be redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties in this dispute.
The Company faces financial problems that require savings in payroll costs. However, in relation to how the savings should be effected, the Court is satisfied that there is some merit in the Union's case.
Some of the savings have been achieved by way of a pay reduction that is not before the Court. The Company seeks to achieve the balance of the requred savings through a redundancy programme that is confined to Rosmuc.
Whilst the Company has integrated its financial management systems it has not as yet integrated its human resource management systems in equal measure.
Consistent with adopting an integrated approach to all matters the Court takes the view that these redundancies should not be confined to Rosmuc in the first instance. All staff in the company should be invited to apply for consideration for redundancy on terms to be published by management following discussion with the relevant trade unions. Consideration should then be given to redeployment of staff across disciplines or locations to align manpower resources with client programmes and needs.
It is only after such a process has failed to address the issues being faced by the company that consideration should be given to compulsory redundancies.
This process should be completed withi six weeks of the date of this recommendation.
The Court further recommends that the three Rosmuc staff that were laid off earlier this year be reinstated and their issues regarding loss of earnings should be dealt with at a later date.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
1st September 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.