Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90312 Case Number: LCR12929 Section / Act: S67 Parties: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED - and - UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Claim by the Union for the exclusion of a carpenter from the Company's rationalisation programme.
Recommendation:
5. In view of the particular circumstances of the employee who
is the subject of this dispute the Court recommends that the
Company accede to the Union's claim that he be retained in the
Company's employment.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90312 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12929
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED
AND
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the exclusion of a carpenter from the
Company's rationalisation programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company produces dyed yarn for carpet manufacture, over
80% of which is exported to the U.K. markets. Following a decline
in market demand in the U.K. a cost cutting programme was
implemented in October, 1989. However, due to price competition,
deterioration in the rate of exchange, etc. the Company decided
that it would have to seek a reduction in fixed wage costs. In
February, 1990 the Company proposed a rationalisation programme
involving thirty redundancies throughout the various sectors of
the workforce. This included a requirement of four redundancies
from the crafts section, one of which would be a carpenter. There
are two carpenters employed in the Company, one with sixteen
years' service and one with eleven years' service. There are no
volunteers for redundancy. However, if a compulsory redundancy
situation existed the worker with the least service would be let
go. The terms on offer are twice statutory plus a once off lump
sum of #450 for workers with seven years' service or more.
Agreement could not be reached on the matter at local level and on
1st May, 1990 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 2nd
May, 1990 and 1st June, 1990 at which no progress was made and on
12th June, 1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 13th June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The trade unions reluctantly agreed to consider a
voluntary redundancy package for their members. However, this
offer was rejected totally by members of this Union. The two
carpenters have long and loyal service with the Company and
have excellent records. There is plenty of work available to
keep both carpenters fully employed. They have been working
overtime on a regular basis for a number of years and they no
longer have an assistant, which means that they must assist
each other when the need arises. There is therefore no need
for redundancy when both are fully employed and work overtime
on a continuous basis to try and cope with the work demand.
2. The carpenter with the least service, i.e. eleven years,
has an added claim to his job due to the fact that he had a
very serious accident in the course of his employment in 1986
(details supplied to the Court). If this worker was made
redundant the only place he is likely to gain employment is in
the construction industry as a carpenter. It is unlikely due
to the disability to his foot, that he would survive very long
in that rough industry. In the past the Company has in such
cases given special consideration to the workers involved and
there are many practical examples of this throughout the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancies, which affect all sections, are necessary
due to a significant drop in demand in the U.K. market which
has also affected our competitors in the U.K. The drop in
demand of 20% over 1988/89 has created intense competition
resulting in significant reductions in selling price. The
continuing strong IR # vis-a-vis sterling has compounded the
situation further. The Company must achieve savings in order
to remain viable and secure the remaining jobs. Failure to
achieve these savings will inevitably lead to much more
serious consequences in the short to medium term and
threaten the Company's future viability.
2. The rationalisation programme has been designed to ensure
that the earnings of the remaining workers will not be
affected. It is understood and essential that where
applicable, following redundancies, changes in shift patterns,
workloads and required flexibility will be forthcoming. The
Union's case for the exclusion of the worker in question is
that he would find it virtually impossible to obtain work due
to his continuing disability. The Company accepts that it
would be more difficult for him to obtain employment.