FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OTIS LIFTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Selection for Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, Otis Lifts, is involved in the installation and maintenance of elevator systems. The Company is part of a multinational corporation and operates throughout Ireland. It is a highly competitive industry with three other main multinational and two large Irish lift companies as well as numerous small specialist and local lift companies. The employees involved are lift engineers represented by the TEEU.
The Company started a consultation process with the Union in June 2009 about the potential need for redundancies of engineers as the Dublin Airport project was coming to an end. Following communication between the parties the Company confirmed in February 2010 that it could not make any offers of redundancy to service engineers but that the redundancies it was seeking were solely from the construction area of the business.
The Union maintains that all employees are the same and do not differentiate between service and construction operations. The Union are therefore seeking a voluntary package across the entire workforce and if this is not sufficient then 'last in first out '(LIFO) should apply.
The matter of redundancies was previously before the Court in 2008 and discussed between the parties but the parties do not currently see the May 2008 recommendation as a basis for resolving the current issue.
The dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th February, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd April, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Union's contention that in the application of compulsory redundancies LIFO should apply across the board as has been done in two of the Company's biggest competitors.
2. The Union contends that all four grades of engineer must be able to install new lifts and repair and maintain existing lifts. They must be completely flexible and therefore able to move around all departments as the need arises.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that it is its intention to apply the terms of the May 2008 Labour Court Recommendation and refuse to accept for voluntary redundancy employees who have key skills which it wishes to retain.
2. The Company contends that the Union position of applying LIFO across all three business areas is unacceptable as the Company would lose experienced engineers thereby causing serious damage to the business and its relationship with existing customers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employers and union in the lift industry recently concluded a Comprehensive Agreement that governs labour relations in the sector. this Agreement identifies four grades of lift engineer and the skills and competencies necessary for progression through the various grades. The agreement makes no distinction between construction, service or maintenance engineers. Accordingly, the Court must conclude that the concensus in the industry is that engineers are interchangeable within grade. The Court was also advised by both sides that this view has widespread acceptance within the sector and has been the basis on which redundancies have been effected across the industry.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that in the first instance, the agreed voluntary redundancy terms should be offered to all staff across all departments in line with industry norms and subject to the retention of key skills. Where sufficient volunteers are not forthcoming the Company should, if necessary to protect the viability of the business, implement compulsory redundancies on a last in first out basis (L.I.F.O.).
Where the Company needs to depart from L.I.F.O. to retain key skills these must be clearly and demonstrably identified by the Company and be consistent with the terms of the Comprehensive Agreement as outlined above.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
20th May, 2010______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.