Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87656 Case Number: LCR11437 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIDARE LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim, by the Union on behalf of three workers for the payment of a 'make-up' allowance and payment of two days' wages in respect of lay-offs.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is satisfied that the Company/Union Agreement does not
provide for transfer payments in respect of temporary transfers
and that the claimants were therefore not within their rights in
claiming such payments as a pre-condition of transfer.
The Court is also of the view that the claimants should have
availed of the Company's offer of alternative work.
In the circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87656 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11437
CC87452 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11437
PARTIES: UNIDARE P.L.C.
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union on behalf of three workers for the payment
of a 'make-up' allowance and payment of two days' wages in respect
of lay-offs.
Background:
2. The Agreement provides for the payment of a 'make-up'
allowance in normal lay-off situations. The 'make-up' allowance
is the difference between the Social Welfare benefits and the
worker's net pay while employed. On Friday 13th February, 1987,
the Company advised the Union that because of slackness in the
overhead light fittings section a lay-off would be implemented in
that section on the following basis -
2 men lay-off from 16th February for 2 weeks,
1 man lay-off from 23rd February for 1 week.
All three workers to resume on 2nd March, 1987, and a system of
week-on/week-off or 2 off/1 on would operate until Easter, 1987.
The Union was further advised that the three workers would not get
the normal 'make-up' payment as they had refused a temporary
transfer to another section where work was available. The workers
were prepared to accept a temporary transfer provided they
received a transfer payment. The Company indicated, however, that
a transfer payment is not made in the case of temporary transfers.
The three workers reported for work the following Monday and
Tuesday, (16th and 17th February, 1987). However, two were not
allowed to check-in. Following discussions it was agreed to
re-cycle the lay-offs and the workers worked out the rest of the
week, with the lay-offs becoming operative from Monday 23rd
February, 1987.
3. The Union lodged a claim for the payment of the 'make-up'
allowance arguing that non-payment is in breach of the
Company/Union Agreement. The Company said that since the workers
in question had refused an offer of temporary alternative work it
would not concede the claim. On 4th March, 1987, the dispute was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. As no
settlement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 22nd
April, 1987, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 3rd
September, 1987, for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 10th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The workers concerned were prepared to move to another
section for temporary work on the basis of the
'transfer agreement' - in other words, if the Company
paid for the move as provided for in the Company/Union
Agreement. The Company has failed to adhere to the
provision of the Agreement.
(ii) The Company failed to give the workers adequate notice
of the lay-off. In all other cases of lay-offs
sufficient time was available for full discussions and
consultation with the Union and workers. This did not
happen in this instance and the workers' decision to
report for duty on the 16th and 17th February, 1987,
has to be seen in that light. In the circumstances
the Union believes that the two workers concerned
should not lose pay for the days they reported,
especially as work was provided for the rest of the
week.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company maintain that no 'make-up' payment can be
made because the workers concerned refused alternative
work that was available to them.
(b) If 'make-up' payment was paid in this particular
situation and subsequently the Company found itself
with a loss of workload for ten jobs in one section
with a counterbalancing workload in another section,
an unacceptable if not ludicrous situation would
pertain. The Company would find itself on foot of
such payment precedent being forced to lay-off ten
people with full 'make-up' payment to normal net pay,
while concurrently finding itself unable to have the
alternative workload undertaken. To say the least,
such mis-management would seem inexcusable as well as
being an abuse of the Social Welfare system.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is satisfied that the Company/Union Agreement does not
provide for transfer payments in respect of temporary transfers
and that the claimants were therefore not within their rights in
claiming such payments as a pre-condition of transfer.
The Court is also of the view that the claimants should have
availed of the Company's offer of alternative work.
In the circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman