Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86774 Case Number: LCR11023 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ECCO LTD - and - ATGWU |
Dispute concerning an alleged commitment given by the Company to re-hire two female workers.
Recommendation:
5. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that the Company should restore employment to the two claimants as
soon as is practical, without prejudice to its future hiring
policy.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86774 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11023
CC861428 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11023
Parties: ECCO LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning an alleged commitment given by the Company
to re-hire two female workers.
Background:
2. The Company was established in Dundalk in 1966 and
manufactures a range of electronic components for U.S. and
European markets. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the General
Electric Company (U.S.A.) and currently employs 410 workers at its
location in Dundalk. In 1983 the Company introduced a continental
shift system in its sinter kiln area, which involved weekend work.
The workers in that area opted for transfers to other sections and
as no other worker in the factory was interested in working there
The Company recruited male workers from outside. The Union had
not succeeded in sustaining a discrimination case against the
Company concerning six women who failed to be rehired in the
Company's sinter kiln operation (DEE5/84 refers). The Union
maintained however that a specific commitment was given to these
ex-employees by the Company at the Court hearing on 24th August,
1984, that they would be rehired when suitable vacancies arose in
the Company. Since the hearing 32 people have been employed by
the Company. Only two of the initial six female workers have
sought re-employment with the Company and they have not been
employed to date. These two workers are the subject of this
dispute. The Company deny that any commitment was given to
re-hire these workers. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 28th August, 1986. A
conciliation conference was held on 30th September, 1986. As no
agreement could be reached the issue was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 4th February, 1987 a date suitable to both
parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Company in its twenty years existence have always
been seen to pursue a policy of rehiring on a seniority
basis. Only on two occasions have they departed from
this policy. The first occasion on the basis of Labour
Court Determination 5/1984 and the second when the two
workers applied for work other than the work they were
debarred from.
(b) It was always the Union's understanding that the two
workers would be rehired as soon as suitable work
became available.
(c) The two workers are at a loss to understand why they
are being discriminated against and why they cannot
secure employment, when as the Company will agree they
have an excellent work record when they were in the
Company's employment.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company must at all times reserve the right to
select employees in the best interest of the business
without question or qualification and each application
is dealt with on an individual basis.
(ii) At no time did a Company representative give a
commitment to rehire the individual without
qualification. Such a commitment could not be honoured
without due regard to Company recruitment policy and
would have adverse effects on future employment
activities. The Company stated that as with all past
employees the workers would have their record kept on
file should future employment opportunities exist for
which they might be suitable.
(iii) Interviewing procedures within the Company are
specifically designed to identify the most suitable
candidates for both immediate and future business needs
in an ever changing high technology industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that the Company should restore employment to the two claimants as
soon as is practical, without prejudice to its future hiring
policy.
~ Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
Deputy Chairman
26th February, 1987
M.D./J.C.