Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87414 Case Number: LCR11335 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HANLONS OFFSHORE SUPPLY LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately twenty-four workers that they should have been re-employed by the Company in 1987 (commencing March, 1987).
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the union accepts that under the terms of
the existing recruitment agreement employers can have valid
grounds for not employing certain workers. In this case the Union
feels that the difficulty the Company has with insurance cover was
not sufficient reason for refusing employment to certain
employees. The Court does not agree with this latter view. Faced
with the statement from its insurers the Company was right not to
attempt to employ workers who had unsettled claims. To do so
would probably have vitiated all its insurance cover. The Court
considers therefore that within the terms of the existing
agreement the employer was not obliged to offer employment to
those who had unsettled claims.
Having regard to the close involvement of the Union in the
recruitment process it would have been wiser if both parties had
explored at an earlier date the difficulties arising from the
extra conditions of the insurers.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87414 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11335
CC87705 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11335
Parties: BILL HANLON OFFSHORE SUPPLY LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(CORK NO. 3 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately twenty-four workers that they
should have been re-employed by the Company in 1987 (commencing
March, 1987).
Background:
2. The Company has been involved in the Offshore Exploration
Industry for ten years. Recruitment for Offshore exploration work
is currently covered by an agreement between the Offshore
Exploration Industry, of which the Company is a member, and the
Union. (The Recruitment Agreement is in Appendix 1). Following a
number of personal injury claims against the Company, its
insurance brokers informed the management that they could not
re-employ any worker with an outstanding claim without the prior
agreement of the underwriters. At the beginning of 1987 there
were thirty six outstanding compensation claims, however a number
of these were later settled. The workers here concerned had
outstanding claims and were therefore considered by the Company to
be unsuitable for recruitment in the 1987 season. This was
unacceptable to the Union who claim that the workers should have
been re-employed. On 5th April, 1987 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 19th May, 1987 at which no agreement
could be reached and on 21st May, 1987 the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 7th July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) At national level meetings, held between January and
4th March, 1987 to discuss and agree on various issues
of importance (details supplied to the Court), this
matter was not raised. It was not until a local
meeting held on 14th March, 1987 (shortly before work
was to commence) that the Company advised the Union
that they could not employ workers with claims pending.
The Company was informed of the decision of the
Insurance Company regarding workers with outstanding
claims in January 1986 however it did not enforce this
instruction in 1986 and apparently had no intention of
enforcing it up to 4th March, 1987. It was obviously a
deliberate decision taken by the Company to prevent
some workers being re-employed.
(ii) It is the Union's understanding that legally and
constitutionally no Insurance Company has the right to
refuse cover to a worker. There is nothing either
stated or implied in either the existing recruitment
agreement or in the agreement reached in March, 1987
that workers would not be employed because of a legal
claim against a Company.
(iii) Some of the workers since their accidents and claims,
when declared fit for work had returned to work in the
Company on previous occassions. This has been the
tradition in the Industry and is so in industry
generally.
(iv) The workers have experienced great losses both
psychologically and financially, some up to #4,000 and
the Court should rule in favour of the workers.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) During its period of operations an enormous amount of
personal injury claims have been served by casual
workers against the Company. The consequences of this
have been that the Company's quoted premium for
insurance increased to 35% of pay roll with an initial
excess of #5,000 on each claim and the underwriters
have refused to insure any worker with an outstanding
personal injuries claim against the Company (details
supplied to the Court). Both employers and unions
would be acting irresponsibly and negligently if they
allowed uninsured persons to work.
(b) The Company has complied fully with the terms of the
existing agreement on method of recruitment in respect
of these workers in deciding that they are unacceptable
to the Company. It is a fundamental right of any
employer to decide on the suitability or otherwise of
any person for employment. The Court has previously
investigated disputes relating to recruitment for
offshore exploration work out of Cork. In LCR No.
10,696 of 10th October, 1986 the Court recommendation
upholds the rights of the employer in recruitment.
(c) It is in the long-term interests of both companies and
workers in the Offshore Exploration Industry in Ireland
to reduce unnecessary disputes. Because of the
recurring difficulties associated with recruitment,
the Industry has proposed a revised recruitment
procedure agreement (details supplied to the Court),
which would overcome these difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the union accepts that under the terms of
the existing recruitment agreement employers can have valid
grounds for not employing certain workers. In this case the Union
feels that the difficulty the Company has with insurance cover was
not sufficient reason for refusing employment to certain
employees. The Court does not agree with this latter view. Faced
with the statement from its insurers the Company was right not to
attempt to employ workers who had unsettled claims. To do so
would probably have vitiated all its insurance cover. The Court
considers therefore that within the terms of the existing
agreement the employer was not obliged to offer employment to
those who had unsettled claims.
Having regard to the close involvement of the Union in the
recruitment process it would have been wiser if both parties had
explored at an earlier date the difficulties arising from the
extra conditions of the insurers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
23rd July, 1987 ---------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman
APPENDIX 1
METHOD OF RECRUITMENT
1. The Union will submit it's list of available experienced
workers stated in order of seniority and categories to the
employers.
2. Applicants will be interviewed in order of seniority within
the categories and this process will continue until the full
crew is named.
3. Where there is disagreement between the parties over the
selection or rejection of any individual applicant, then this
will be processed through established procedures without
recourse to industrial action and the rig will commence
operations.
4. All employees recruited will be required to register on the
National Manpower Register of Experienced Labour. A
discharge book system will be introduced for all employees
following consultation with the Union.
5. As and from 1st January, 1986, all employees recruited will
be required to have completed the Fire Fighting and Safety
Course.