Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87703
Case Number: LCR11521
Section / Act: S67
Parties: ODLUM GROUP LTD - and - ITGWU
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the non replacement of 3 workers who have retired.
Recommendation:Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87703 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11521
JIC151 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11521
PARTIES: ODLUM GROUP LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non replacement of 3 workers who have
retired.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arose over the Company's decision not to replace
3 workers a wheat silo operative, cleaner and flour packer who
retired on 1st October, 1986, 27th December, 1986 and 22nd July,
1987 respectively. The Company identified a reduction in the
amount of work available in 3 areas, the wheat silos, dining
hall/dressing rooms/flour silo cleaning and the warehouse. In
September, 1986 the Company proposed a reorganisation in these
areas (details supplied to the Court). The Company's proposals
were rejected by the Unions'. During the course of negotiations
held at local level the Company modified its proposals to provide
for wage increases for the workers most directly affected by the
reorganisation (details supplied to the Court). The revised
proposals were rejected by the Unions' though still opposed to any
staff reductions, considered that the monetary offer could be
improved and applied to all 34 workers in the milling section.
The Company through the office of the Irish Flour Millers' Union
referred the matter to the Joint Industrial Council (J.I.C.) for
the Flour Milling Industry. The J.I.C. met on 24th August, 1987
and on 4th September, 1987. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and rcommendation. A Court hearing was held on 16th
October, 1987.
Company's arguments:
3. (a) The Irish flour milling industry to-day is operating in
an environment that is tougher and more competitive
than at any time since the 1930's. The situation is
unlikely to improve in the future (details supplied to
the Court). Against this background it is essential
that the Company ensures its competiveness in order to
survive.
(b) The Company identified areas which were overmanned. An
opportunity now exists with the retirement of 3 workers
to bring the manning levels into order without the
necessity of resorting to redundancy.
(c) In order that agreement could be reached the Company
offered increases in pay to those workers directly
affected by the re-organisation even though these were
not warranted. It is highly unusual in the
circumstances of this case to pay increases in basic
rates to the workers remaining.
(d) The Company considers its offer is fair and reasonable
taking into account all the circumstances and asks the
Court to uphold the Company position on this important
matter.
Unions' arguments:
4. (i) In order to understand the workers opposition to the
changes and their fear of same it should be noted
that the number of workers on site has declined from
105 in 1970 to 62 in 1986. In the light of these
reductions and the current employment situation it is
not surprising that the workers are not receptive to
further job losses.
(ii) The workers are opposed to any further job losses as
they consider that all are usefully and gainfully
employed and that the Company is profitable.
(iii) The Unions' did not make any monetary claim in this
case because they are opposed to the job losses. The
only reason that consideration was given to a
monetary settlement is because of the offers the
Company made. However if the offer was to be
considered it would have to be in excess of the money
offered and applied to all the 34 workers employed in
the milling operation because in order to accommodate
the proposed manning reductions there would have to
be changes in work practices.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
5. The Court appreciates the Unions' concern to retain jobs but
having regard to the circumstances of the industry and to avoid
compulsory redundancies in the future the Court recommends that
the non-filling of vacancies on the terms proposed by the Company
be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__10th___November,___1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chiarman