LCR15627

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/10 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15627 (CC96/1205) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KROMBERG AND SCHUBERT (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning reduction in manning in the electrical department.




BACKGROUND:

2. The Company manufactures electrical harnesses for the automotive industry and employs 300 workers. There has been a significant reduction in numbers in the employment in recent years. The Company is now seeking a reduction in its electrical maintenance department of one electrician. The Company has sought a volunteer for redundancy but there is no volunteer available. However, it maintains that the reduction is essential as there is an overcapacity in the electrical department. The Union rejected the Company claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 22nd November, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 6th January 1997. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on the 26th August 1997, (the earliest date suitable to the parties).


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. There is no overcapacity in the electrical department and there is no volunteer for redundancy. The Union is prepared to consider flexibilities required by the Company including multi-skilling as between electricians/fitters. The Union would also consider the redeployment of an electrician to a job where he could continue to practise his trade.







2. The Company's policy quite clearly is to outsource the Electrical Department. The issue has nothing to do with manning.

3. The Union has co-operated with significant reductions in manning when it was achieved on a voluntary basis or through natural wastage.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. Because of a severe downturn in the Company's business in recent years the Company has been forced to reduce drastically numbers in its employment. The electrical department is not cost-effective and the further one reduction is necessary.

2. In proportional terms all areas have maintained or reduced their levels. The exception is the electrical department which has trebled in relative size since 1985. This cannot be sustained. There is a pressing need to control costs to maintain the bulk of the remaining jobs.

3. There are 3 electrician positions. There is no viable position for the 4th electrician. If the Company cannot achieve the redundancy it will be forced to implement a compulsory lay-off, as per company precedent.



RECOMMENDATION:

The Court having considered all the information supplied by the parties, recommends that both sides enter into discussions to explore, in a creative way, the options available to the employee likely to be affected by the proposed reduction.

If the parties fail to reach an accommodation within 2 months the Court will make a Recommendation on this matter.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
5th September, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.