INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
HERTEL (IRELAND) LIMITED
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
2. The Company was engaged to perform the scaffolding work at a construction site in Co. Dublin. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment as a general operative on the 19th March, 2003. Because of a downturn in business the Company declared the worker (together with another employee) redundant on the 30th January, 2004. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly treated. On the 11th May, 2004 the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 11th January, 2005.
3. 1 Two workers with less service than the claimant were retained in the employment. The Company treated them more favourably than it did the claimant by keeping them in employment ahead of him.
2. The claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy. The Company failed to adhere to its own stated and written procedures in relation to the implementation of redundancies.
4. 1. The Company was forced to choose two workers from a panel of six general operatives for redundancy. Selection was based on criteria which the Company considered were wholly objective, as follows: length of service, timekeeping/ attendance, disciplinary record and qualifications.
2. The claimant had the poorest attendance of the entire pool. He had received a recorded verbal warning regarding his poor timekeeping and was the only one of the six workers who had a disciplinary record. The Company believes that the worker was fairly selected for redundancy.
The Court notes that an agreement exists between the parties on the selection for redundancy which provides that it will be on merit and service. Whilst the Court believes that the parties should set out clearly the criteria against which merit will be measured for the purpose of selection, the method used by the employer in this case was consistent with the agreement as currently drafted.
In the circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th January, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.