Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87552 Case Number: LCR11322 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: TONGE & TAGGART LTD - and - ATGWU |
Dispute concerning the selection of two employees for temporary lay off.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Union is not arguing that its members
should be retained at the expense of managerial and other
employees but rather that there is sufficient work to warrant the
continued employment of its members in addition to those others
who are being retained.
The Court, having assessed the situation at the hearing in the
light of the submissions made, has come to the view that the
proposals from Management are not unreasonable but recommends that
the situation be kept under constant review.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87552 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11322
CC871047 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11322
Parties: TONGE & TAGGART LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(Association of Clerical Technical and Supervisory Staffs)
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the selection of two employees for
temporary lay off.
Background:
2. The Company, because of the decisions by Local Authorities not
to proceed with essential watermain extensions and repairs due to
Government cutbacks, decided to cease production with the result
that all the foundry workers and all but eight clerical/
administrative staff were laid off (the lay-offs are expected to
last until September, when Management will review the situation).
Similar situations had arisen in the past and the workers
concerned were placed on temporary lay-off under the Redundancy
Payments Act.
On this occasion, disagreement arose regarding the selection of a
receptionist/telephonist and a credit controller for temporary
lay-off. The Union argued that neither job were in any sense
'redundant' and that therefore a case for lay-off did not exist.
Agreement on this issue could not be reached at local level and on
the 6th July, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on the 8th July and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for an urgent investigation and
recommendation. In addition, both sides agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 14th
July and a letter recommendation issued to both parties the
following day.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) In previous lay-offs, when the foundry was not in
production, those of the administrative staff who were
engaged in functions relating to production were asked to
co-operate by accepting temporary lay-off. They did so
in recognition of the fact that with the foundry closed
they would have no work to do. Those of the
administrative staff whose function was not wholly or
mainly involved with production were telephone order
clerk, sales personnel, computer operator, telephonist/
receptionist, credit controller and managing director/
secretary. At no time was any member of management
required to go on lay-off, whether his job was production
orientated or not.
(b) On this occasion the Company has departed from the
previous practice in that it advised the receptionist/
telephonist and the credit controller that they were both
being laid off and that their jobs would be given to
other members of the staff. The receptionist/telephonist
job was to be given to the Managing Director's secretary
and the credit controller's job to a manager whose job
was wholly or mainly tied up with production.
(c) The switchboard in the Company is a very busy one with
more than twelve incoming calls per hour and an average
of thirty outgoing calls per day, all of which must go
through the switch. In addition, the worker concerned
has other duties, i.e. purchase ledger, payment of all
creditors' accounts and petty cash. In previous lay-offs
there was no reduction in the workload of the
receptionist. She has thirteen years' service with the
Company and during that time has always performed her
tasks in an exemplary fashion. It is not fair that she
should be laid off and her work given to someone with six
months' service.
(d) The recessionary times have placed greater emphasis on
the credit controller's function than was the case when
business was more settled and companies could be relied
on to discharge their debts without constant reminders.
It is recognised that it takes special skills to keep the
money coming in and the targets on schedule. In the
Company's case this means that the credit control
function is a full-time one, needing skills built up
through years of experience. Here again the Company has
departed from previous practice by laying-off the credit
controller and passing his job on to a manager who has
never had anything to do with credit control and whose
position in the Company is wholly and mainly concerned
with production related accounts. Any work he performed
outside that brief can only be described as minimal and
in addition, his service to the Company is less than that
of the credit controller.
(e) The Union can understand why the Company might want to
keep its key management team and why the Managing
Director would want to keep his personal secretary. What
it cannot understand or accept is that the Company can
call for sacrifice from the vast majority of staff
because of their acceptance of the difficult position the
Company finds itself in and then apply double standards
when giving effect to that acceptance, i.e. by laying-off
the two workers concerned and giving their jobs to two
others.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) It is Management's case that it must make the selection
for lay-offs and having made a judgement must feel
confident that its decision can work.
(b) Nobody can claim, and this includes the credit controller
and the receptionist, that their workload is as heavy
as when the Company was fully employed and producing to
capacity.
(c) Management will accept that there is a volume of work
which must still be done. But this situation relates not
only to those two occupations but equally to all other
clerical jobs. It is unreasonable for two persons to
have their position altered whilst the remainder of staff
consider the selection fair. In addition, to apply the
test of seniority would produce a ranking which would not
have met with the Company's needs.
(d) It is not a question of Management taking unilateral
action as the other unions involved have accepted in a
democratic manner the selection procedure and accept the
fact that whilst they have work to do the immediate task
is to keep the Company afloat, thereby preserving jobs.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Union is not arguing that its members
should be retained at the expense of managerial and other
employees but rather that there is sufficient work to warrant the
continued employment of its members in addition to those others
who are being retained.
The Court, having assessed the situation at the hearing in the
light of the submissions made, has come to the view that the
proposals from Management are not unreasonable but recommends that
the situation be kept under constant review.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th August, 1987 John M Horgan
DH/PG --------------
Chairman