INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
DLRS GROUP SECURITY CONCEPTS
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Hayes
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan
1. Selection criteria to be used in redundancy
2. This dispute concerns the issue of selection criteria to be used in the case of five compulsory redundancies in the Company. This 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 7 April 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th May 2014.
3. 1. The Union is totally opposed to any form of matrix selection and request that the five compulsory redundancies would be on a “last in / first out” basis from the groups set out below:-
(a). The Union argues against the Transport member of staff being isolated for selection for redundancy on their own on the basis that they are flexible and interchangeable with Security as a group of three. It has also come to light that one of the Security staff has about two years to retirement and so the Union suggests that this position be suppressed through natural wastage at that time.
(b). In relation to the IT post, the Union argues that there is currently a group of three working in IT and would argue for this redundancy to be on the basis of “last in / first out” from that group of three.
(c). In relation to the Supervisor position, the Union argues that this should be “last in /first out” from a group of three.
(d). Similarly, the Union argues that the two Finance/Reception redundancies should be on the basis of “last in / first out” from a group of four.
4. 1. The Company claims that the operational skillset required now and into the future is totally different from that which had pertained in the past and that the retention of key skills is essential for the Company’s future. In this regard, the Company says that they have no choice but to look at discrete selection criteria for the five redundancies concerned.
2. The Company has three supervisory positions and requires a reduction from three to two. It has four positions in Finance/Reception and requires these to be reduced to two. The Company says that they can no longer retain the Data Preparation Supervisory position in Bray due to technology change and the transfer of the majority of the work to the Lisburn site. In addition, the Company says that there is no longer sufficient volume of work to justify retaining a Transport position in the factory area.
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court advised the parties to engage with each other with the assistance of an independent Facilitator to seek to reach agreement on the issues outstanding. At the request of the parties, the Court nominated an independent Facilitator to be appointed to assist them to find a resolution to the dispute. The parties made some progress during that process but failed to reach agreement. The Facilitator made a report to the Court on the progress made.
Based on the Facilitator’s Report and the submissions of the parties that had been opened to the Court when the matter came on for hearing before it, the Court makes the following definitive Recommendation;-
The Court recommends as follows:-
The Court recommends that the parties adopt the Employer’s selection matrix with the following amendments:-
Two new headings be included in the matrix as follows:-
(1) Service be included as a selection factor with a weighting of 10% of the total marks; and
(2) Attendance Record be included as a selection factor with a weighting of 10% of the total marks.
The Court recommends that the Pass Mark for appointment to the available positions be set at 60%.
The Court finally recommends that the job specifications agreed with the Facilitator together with the recommended pass mark and the amended matrices above be accepted by both sides in full and final settlement of the issues in dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th August 2014______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helen Tobin, Court Secretary.