INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
GOULDS PUMPS LIMITED
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Owens
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Proposed redundancy.
2. The Company is a subsidiary of a Multi-national Company with a distribution outlet in Ireland. It is a distributor of agricultural and domestic pumps and employs seven people.
The Company claims that its staffing levels in the Accounts Department (2) is excessive and wishes to make one redundancy in this area. It has introduced a new computerised system in the Accounts Department which can be operated by one person.
The Union rejects the Company's claim and states that there is no necessity for a redundancy. It has suggested that cost savings can be achieved by the Company with the introduction of job-sharing.
The Company rejects the Union's proposal of job-sharing and claims that a redundancy in the Accounts Department is warranted.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 8th and 20th of October, 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 24th of November, 1997.
3. 1. The Union rejects the need for a redundancy and claims that cost savings can accrue to the Company with the introduction of job-sharing.
2. The Union does not believe that the Accounts Department can be operated by one person.
3. The work load in the Accounts Department has increased substantially.
4. The Company has employed a "contract person" to work in the Accounts Section without any consultation with the Union or staff.
5. The Union believes that there is an ulterior motive in the Company's actions and that the redundancy is in fact a cover for dismissal.
4. 1. The Company employed an Accountant on a "contract basis" to review the operation of the Accounts Department and to introduce changes where necessary. It was established that the Department could be operated by one person.
2. The Company is not prepared to operate the Accounts Department on a job- sharing basis. The operation is too small for that.
3. The Accounts Department is not as efficient as it should be. The Company have similar operations in other countries which operate more efficiently.
4. The Company believe that any decision regarding redundancy is a matter for management and is not the function of a third party to decide the issue.
The Court is satisfied that there is need for rationalisation in the Accounts Section. In the circumstances outlined, the Court recommends that the parties meet immediately to agree terms for redundancy. In the event of failure to agree it may be referred back direct to the Court for recommendation without holding a further hearing.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th November, 1997______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.