Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87730 Case Number: LCR11544 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MCCORMACK'S JOINERY - and - UCATT |
Claim by the Union for the re-instatement of a joiner temporarily laid-off.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the unsatisfactory and uneasy
relationship which exists between the Company and the Trade Union
has contributed to the dispute before the Court. The Court
recommends that both sides should endeavour to achieve a
satisfactory working relationship as soon as possible in the
interests of good industrial relations.
In relation to the specific matter before it, the Court recommends
that the Company should offer the claimant the first suitable
vacancy that arises.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87730 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11544
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: McCORMACK'S JOINERY LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the re-instatement of a joiner
temporarily laid-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 25th November, 1986, the Company informed the workforce
that as a result of deteriorating market conditions it would have
to lay-off sixteen workers until 1st April, 1987, when it expected
an upturn in business. Subsequently, the Company requested three
of the workers on lay-off to return to work. Of these two
returned whilst the other worker left the Company, having obtained
alternative employment. In December, 1986, the Union requested a
meeting with the Company to discuss the lay-offs. This meeting
took place on 27th April, 1987. However, as the anticipated
upturn in business did not materialise, the Company was unable to
take those on lay-off back to work on 1st April, 1987. Instead,
the Company offered the twelve workers still on lay-off (one other
worker on lay-off had also left the Company), either redundancy on
a statutory basis or a prolonged period of lay-off. Prior to the
meeting with the Union on 27th April, 1987, the Company received
acceptance of the redundancy from nine of those still on lay-off.
As grounds for settlement could not be achieved at local level,
the matter was referred on 26th May, 1987, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. Prior to a conciliation conference
on 1st September, 1987, (the earliest date suitable to the
Company), two of the three workers remaining on lay-off accepted
the Company's redundancy proposal. As no agreement was reached at
the conciliation conference, the matter was referred on 29th
September, 1987, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 4th November, 1987,
in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is of the view that consultations should have
taken place before the Company took any action. Had this
been done, it might have been possible to devise a solution
that would see the Company through a bad period whilst
retaining the full workforce. The Company denied themselves
and the Union this opportunity.
2. The Company has failed to inform the Union how the
workers were selected for lay-off. The worker in question,
who has over sixteen years of service was unfairly selected.
The Company has used his absenteeism as a reason for
selection, however, most of his absences were certified and
on two occasions he was in hospital for treatment for long
periods. The Company has unfairly included in their
breakdown of absenteeism, all the time lost through an
official dispute for recognition in 1985.
3. In his sixteen years with the Company, the worker has
done a large variety of jobs and the Union argues that there
is plenty of work available for him to be employed within the
Company. Indeed, his job is currently being done by another
worker with less service and several workers are on overtime
while he remains laid-off.
4. The Union contends that the lay-offs were victimisation
as a result of the recognition dispute in 1985, and therefore
the worker, who has been unfairly selected, should be
re-instated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that the worker concerned was
laid-off as a result of a decline in the number of workers
required in his department. He would have been less
efficient than other workers who were retained during the
lay-off, therefore, he was chosen for lay-off.
2. He did not operate his machine totally on his own, but
required others to calculate lengths and dimensions of
components. He did simple jobs which required little
initiative, and comparing him with other employees in the
department, he was the least suitable to retain.
3. His attendance record both in the Company and by
comparison with others in the department is substantially
worse (details provided to the Court).
4. The Company did not know what members of staff were in
the Union and therefore was not in a position to know if the
lay-offs affected Union members. Had this information been
provided, then the Company would have been in a position to
discuss the lay-offs with the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the unsatisfactory and uneasy
relationship which exists between the Company and the Trade Union
has contributed to the dispute before the Court. The Court
recommends that both sides should endeavour to achieve a
satisfactory working relationship as soon as possible in the
interests of good industrial relations.
In relation to the specific matter before it, the Court recommends
that the Company should offer the claimant the first suitable
vacancy that arises.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th November, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman