Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86606 Case Number: AD8689 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MIDLANDS CLOTHING LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Appeal, by both parties, against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM/16842 concerning protective notice.
Recommendation:
6. The Court finds that the circumstances of this case are fully
comprehended in Clause 15.1 of the Company/Union agreement and
that this clause provides that in the circumstances of this case
"no wage payments will be made." The Company's offer to provide
the opportunity of making up the time lost was reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation be set aside and the Company's appeal upheld.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86606 THE LABOUR COURT AD89/86
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
APPEAL DECISION NO. 89 OF 1986
Parties: MIDLAND CLOTHING COMPANY LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal, by both parties, against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CM/16842 concerning protective notice.
Background:
2. The Company, which was established in October, 1981, employs
approximately 150 workers in the manufacture of mens suits.
3. On 7th May, 1986, an electric motor broke down in the late
afternoon. The employees were informed at 5.00 p.m. that they
would not be required the next day. No payment was made to the
workers for the following day. The Company argued that this was
in line with Clause 15 of the Company/Union agreement (details
supplied). The Company offered to allow the workers to make up
their lost earnings by working in the time over a long or a short
period as desired. This was not acceptable to the Union which
argued that the workers did not receive adequate notice of
lay-off. As no agreement could be reached the matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner who recommended as follows:-
"The notice, although very short, was unavoidable but it
would be unfair to require the employees to bear so much
of a cost in lost pay. As a reasonable compromise I
recommend that the Company concede 3 hours' pay each."
The parties rejected the recommendation and appealed the matter to
the Court for decision under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place in Longford on
7th October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The recommendation does not reflect the general
principle of at least 24 hours protective notice.
(ii) If the recommendation is implemented it would form a
dangerous precedent to established procedures and
natural justice for people being laid-off.
(iii)The fact that a motor broke down is unfortunate but
cannot be seen as removing the Employer's responsibility
to provide the workers with work as per their agreed
working week.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The recommendation is inconsistent in that on the one
hand it accepts that the notice given was given as soon
as possible, but recommends that the Company nonetheless
pay compensation. This is inconsistent with clause 15
of Company/Union agreement.
(b) Regular lay-offs are not a feature at the Company, nor
is it in the Company's interest that lay-offs take
place. However, there is a clause in the Company/Union
agreement to provide for such unusual circumstances as
arose in this case. The Company considers that there is
no reason for departing from the strict terms of that
clause.
(c) The Company should not be expected to bear the cost of
the lost hours and its proposal which permitted
employees to work up the lost hours should be regarded
as an equitable basis for the settlement of the matter.
DECISION:
6. The Court finds that the circumstances of this case are fully
comprehended in Clause 15.1 of the Company/Union agreement and
that this clause provides that in the circumstances of this case
"no wage payments will be made." The Company's offer to provide
the opportunity of making up the time lost was reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation be set aside and the Company's appeal upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_____________________________
Chairman.
4th November, 1986.
D.M./J.C.