Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8793 Case Number: LCR11071 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NOEL HANLON AMBULANCE - and - ITGWU |
SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR LAY-OFF
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the work available should be shared
among the total workforce on the basis of the undertaking given to
the Court that the necessary production targets will be met and
the standards of quality attained by the workforce at no
additional cost to the Company. Should this not work out over a
period of three months trial then the present arrangement should
be reverted to.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8793 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11071
CC8710 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11071
Parties: NOEL HANLON IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Selection procedure for lay-off.
Background:
2. The Company manufactures ambulances for export, mainly to the
United Kingdom. In August 1986, the Company informed the Union
that due to a shortage of work it was forced to introduce
short-time working which would operate on a week-on week-off
basis. This pattern of working continued for approximately five
weeks when full-time working was resumed. However, in November,
1986, the Company informed the Union that it was laying off 85
workers on a temporary basis and that the remainder of the
workforce would be retained in a permanent capacity. This was
done by the Company offering full-time employment to those workers
whom it considered the most suitable to produce the required
output. This was unacceptable to the Union who claimed that
workers should be retained or laid-off on a seniority/service
basis, all things being equal. This was rejected by the Company
and as no agreement could be reached at local level the matter was
referred, on 29th December, 1986, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference, held on 4th
February, 1987, failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 26th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Since the lay-off in question arose a number of general
meetings of all the Union's members in the Company have
taken place and the unanimous decision of all
concerned, both employed and laid off, was that all
workers should participate in the work available. This
decision has been communicated to the Company by the
Union but no formal reply has been received.
(ii) The manner in which the lay-off took place is not in
accordance with good industrial relation practices or
with natural justice. The Company contends that the
previous pattern of week-on week-off short-time working
led to a drop-off in output. However, a number of
reasons, such as the unavailability of parts for
ambulances, led to this situation and therefore, the
fall off in production was not the workers' fault.
Should the Company be prepared to share the work
available among the total workforce the Union is
prepared to give an undertaking that the necessary
output will be achieved without loss of work quality or
at any extra expense to the Company.
(iii) The Union considers that when the question of lay-off
arises it should be on the basis of seniority, all
things being equal, as is the norm in such
circumstances throughout industry generally.
(iv) The Company advised the Union that the lay-off was of a
temporary nature, subject to review in December, 1986.
However, three months later the lay-off is still in
operation and therefore cannot be considered temporary.
In these circumstances, the Union considers the workers
concerned should be compensated for the extended
lay-off, which is unnecessary.
(v) The Union's claim is a valid one and should be
conceded.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) When short-time working was in operation on a week-on
week-off basis the necessary production of targets of
14 ambulances per week were not met because the
motivation to do so was missing. This has also been
the Company's experience in the past in similar
circumstances. Because of the intense competitive
nature of the business in which the Company is
involved, which involves tendering on an annual basis,
it must be as cost effective as possible while at the
same time meeting the necessary production targets.
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the
Company considered that the only solution open to it
was to select a team which would be permanently
employed and deliver 9 ambulances per week, and lay-off
the remainder until the order book improved. On this
basis management selected a team which it believed
would achieve the best results. The implementation of
this working system has proved satisfactory from the
Company's point of view.
(b) The Company explained the position to the Union when
the parties met both at local and conciliation level.
The Company assured the Union that the present
workforce could be expected to be employed fully up to
March, 1987, provided the Ford chassis was available.
The Company also undertook to review the position of
those laid-off but the indication was that the lay-off
would continue into the new year. In the circumstances
this was the best the Company could offer the Union.
(c) The Company regrets that any lay-offs were necessary
but believes that the present arrangement is the only
solution to the output problem in a short-time
situation. The evidence is clear - when week on/week
off operated, output was not achieved, whereas when
permanent work was offered to a selected team, target
figures of 9 units per week were achieved.
(d) In all the circumstances of this case, the Union's
objections to the working pattern introduced by the
Company should be rejected and the Company's position
upheld.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the work available should be shared
among the total workforce on the basis of the undertaking given to
the Court that the necessary production targets will be met and
the standards of quality attained by the workforce at no
additional cost to the Company. Should this not work out over a
period of three months trial then the present arrangement should
be reverted to.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
24th March, 1987