Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87175 Case Number: LCR11171 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH (IRL) - and - MR. KEN BARRY |
Redundancy payment for temporary workers.
Recommendation:
6. In the light of misunderstanding which arose last September
the Company should re-offer the terms for the voluntary package as
calculated last September. It should however be made clear that
any temporary employee who accepts it will lose all rights to
re-employment.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87175 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11171
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11171
Parties: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH IRELAND LTD
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
A GROUP OF WORKERS
Subject:
1. Redundancy payment for temporary workers.
Background:
2. In March, 1986, the Company announced a reorganisation plan
which would involve making a large number of workers (380)
redundant on 26th September, 1986, this included both permanent
and temporary workers. In September 1986, prior to the
redundancies, the Company decided that there was a need to retain
some extra workers for a further period (approximately six weeks)
due to production requirements. This included approximately
twelve temporary workers, six of whom were employed by the Company
until December 1986 and re-employed from February 1987 (one of
these workers left in February 1987 to take up employment in
another Company). The other six temporary workers were due to
leave on 26th September, 1986 but three were subsequently retained
until December 1986 and also re-employed from February, 1987. A
further three left the Company on 26th September, 1986 and were
re-employed from October to December, 1986 and have been working
again in the Company since February and March, 1987.
3. Some of these temporary workers claimed that they should have
received redundancy pay in line with the terms negotiated for the
redundancies which took effect in September, 1986. During the
latter part of 1986 (November/December) discussions took place on
the possibility of introducing one man vans in the dispatch area
which would result in a need for less workers and the possibility
was raised of allowing six of the temporary workers (choice by
seniority) to avail of redundancy if this situation arose, however
the trials were subsequently withdrawn and this option was then no
longer available. In February, 1987 a number of these temporary
workers referred the dispute for investigation and recommendation
by a Rights Commissioner, the Company declined to take part in
such an investigation. In March, 1987 nine of these workers
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and
recommendation, and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 3rd April,
1987.
Workers' arguments:
4. (i) Prior to the redundancies in September, 1986, the
Company informed the workers that extra workers were
required for a 5-6 week period. Eleven temporary
workers opted to stay and were informed in November 1986
that the redundancy payment was no longer available as
it was forfeited when the workers agreed to remain at
work. The workers were not informed that by staying on
for the extra 6 weeks the redundancy payment would be
forfeited.
(ii) Permanent workers who remained at work after the
redundancy date in September 1986 for the extra period
of work have since left and received the agreed
redundancy payment. Similarly, temporary workers who
received the payment have since had periods of
employment with the Company. The Company would have
been aware that there would be an ongoing need for
temporary workers.
(iii) The workers were availing of the extra period of work
available and should be treated in the same manner as
the other workers in the Company, the Company should
honour the September agreement. The workers wish to
work and have no objection to being retained on a
seasonal basis. It is more than likely that some of the
eleven temporary workers will be let go after the Easter
rush.
(iv) Due to present requirements, including the move back to
2 man vans, workers who were made redundant have been
brought back to work and many are working in higher paid
areas. The workers who remained with the Company are
being unfairly treated and should have been informed in
September, 1986 that by staying at work the Company was
of the opinion they were no longer entitled to the
agreed redundancy payments.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company declined to take part in an investigation of
the matter by a Rights Commissioner as there is a
registered agreement in existence which outlines the
procedures to be gone through in such situations and
this process would have violated the agreement.
(b) The Company has for many years employed temporary
workers to cover seasonal needs and other production and
service requirements. This situation will occur
indefinitely and the workers concerned receive the same
wages and conditions of employment as permanent workers.
The Company would not consider making workers presently
employed redundant.
(c) At the time of negotiations and arrangements for
redundancies in and around September, 1986, the Company
at all times made it clear that there would be an
ongoing requirement for approximately twelve temporary
workers and that those who opted to remain would do so
under the same conditions of temporary employment as
before, i.e. work when required, laid off when not
needed, etc.
(d) The workers concerned are the most senior temporary
workers. The Company had agreed that the most senior
workers would have the option of remaining or leaving
and these workers exercised their seniority rights in
staying at work after the redundancies in September,
1986. More junior workers would have been retained in
temporary employment and not made redundant if these
workers had opted to leave.
(e) Temporary workers are recalled on a seniority basis and
the value of work since September, 1986 has been worth
more than the redundancy money involved. Of the twelve
temporary workers approximately half have chosen to
remain working with the Company rather than claiming
redundancy payments.
Recommendation:
6. In the light of misunderstanding which arose last September
the Company should re-offer the terms for the voluntary package as
calculated last September. It should however be made clear that
any temporary employee who accepts it will lose all rights to
re-employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th May, 1987 John M Horgan
U.M./P.G. Chairman