Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87421 Case Number: LCR11305 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - AEU |
Claim on behalf of approximately thirty three workers (craftsmen and apprentices) for payment for the first three days of a lay-off period.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of the case the Court does not accept
that the craftsmen were unfairly laid-off and does not therefore
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87421 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11305
CC87297 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11305
Parties: BORD NA MONA
and
CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS
(AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION,
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION,
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately thirty three workers
(craftsmen and apprentices) for payment for the first three days
of a lay-off period.
Background:
2. On 14th August, 1986 general operatives in the Lullymore
Briquette Factory went on unofficial strike. Due to the stoppage
of work, management put the factory on a care and maintenance
basis and the craftsmen were laid off at finishing time on Friday
15th August, 1986. They recommenced work on Tuesday 26th August,
1986. During the lay off period the workers received social
welfare benefit except for the first three 'waiting' days. The
Union claimed that the Company should pay the workers for these
three days to which social welfare benefit does not apply, as
there was sufficient work in the factory for the workers to carry
out. This claim was rejected by the Company and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 10th
February, 1987. A conciliation conference was held on 30th March,
1987 at which no agreement could be reached and on 20th May, 1987
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 22nd June,
1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) The decision to lay off the craftsmen was illogical and
taken in haste. The dispute itself lasted for a total
of seven working days. The Unions had pointed out to
management that, while the annual overhaul of the plant
had taken place recently, there was a considerable
amount of maintenance work which could be carried out.
In the event of this work finishing, the Unions would
have been prepared to discuss gradual lay offs with
management in the context of the work available.
(ii) While the Unions recognise that eventually work may not
have been available in this situation, they reject the
concept that, because other workers entered into a
dispute, the craftsmen should automatically have been
involved. The amount of notice (a few hours) given to
the workers was unacceptable. In comparison a worker
losing employment would at least have been given the
minimum terms of notice.
(iii) It is the Unions' belief that local management used the
craftsmen in order to put pressure on the workers in
dispute to resolve the matter and return to work as
quickly as possible. This type of action does not help
to form a good industrial relations climate.
Board's arguments:
4. (a) The Board was facing severe financial difficulties
following poor production in the previous year in which
only 39% of milled peat target had been achieved and
there was a loss of #17.7m. The persistent bad weather
in the 1986 season meant that at the time of the
lay-offs in August, 1986 only 33% of the overall milled
peat target had been achieved and in Lullymore itself
only 25% of target had been reached. The situation at
the time was viewed so seriously that on 1st August,
1986 management had outlined to all Unions the serious
crisis which could result in large scale lay-offs of
permanent workers.
(b) At the time of the dispute there was no production in
progress on the bog due to the continuing bad weather
and the annual factory overhaul had just been
completed. The closure of the factory not only
contributed to a loss of revenue but also resulted in
no work being available for either production or
maintenance workers.
(c) At local level management had discussions on the
situation with craft union representatives and
suggested that the workers take annual leave instead of
being laid-off. During the lay-off period, eleven of
these workers were on annual leave and one worker was
on sick leave.
(d) In other similar cases, the Labour Court has not
recommended concession of the claims (Labour Court
Recommendation No.s 7469 and 8652 refer).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of the case the Court does not accept
that the craftsmen were unfairly laid-off and does not therefore
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th July, 1987 --------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman