Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87877 Case Number: LCR11789 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MICRO MOTORS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of a worker for a severance payment of #5,000.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the further submissions made by the parties,
the Court does not find any grounds for departing from the terms
of Recommendation NO. 11253 which did not recommend payment of
severance compensation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87877 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MICRO MOTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for a severance payment of #5,000.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned had his employment terminated by the
Company on 19th December, 1986. The Union lodged a claim for his
re-instatement which was the subject of a Labour Court
investigation held on 19th May, 1987.
3. The Court issued Labour Court Recommendation No. 11253 which
is attached as an Appendix to this recommendation.
4. Subsequent to the issue of the Recommendation the Union wrote
to the Company advising that it was their opinion that the workers
had complied with the recommendation and that the worker concerned
should be re-instated. The Company replied that it was satisfied
with the recommendation and had no comments to make.
5. As the Union was not happy with the Company's response the
matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court on the 14th October, 1987. A conciliation conference was
held on 11th November, 1987. At the conciliation conference the
Union claimed a severance payment of #5,000 for the worker as it
was considered that the Company did not want to re-employ the
worker concerned. The Company rejected the claim. Another
conciliation conference was held on 3rd March, 1988 but the
parties failed to reach agreement. As no agreement was possible
both parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Galway on 9th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union's position at the moment, which is based on the
Company's behaviour since the recommendation, is that it would
be better for the worker if at all possible to obtain some
financial settlement and sever his links with Micro Motors.
His return to employment would be difficult for him and the
Company. However, that is without prejudice to the
recommendation made earlier by the Court.
6. 2. The Court is asked to recommend a lump sum in full and
final settlement of this long-standing dispute which will
incorporate 6 weeks' minimum notice and an amount to reflect
his 14 years service with the Company and his almost
non-existent chance of getting employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company has considered and implemented Labour Court
Recommendation NO. 11253.
2. The worker concerned refused to carry out a legitimate
instruction. He was given every opportunity to do so. His
failure to do so led to an unofficial stoppage which resulted
in a closedown. The Company's loss is immeasurable with many
valuable orders lost. Management cannot justify any payment
to the worker on the grounds of his total intransigence.
Accordingly the Court is asked to reject the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the further submissions made by the parties,
the Court does not find any grounds for departing from the terms
of Recommendation NO. 11253 which did not recommend payment of
severance compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
12th April, 1988. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
APPENDIX
CD87315 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11253
CC87257 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11253
Parties: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of a dismissed worker for re-instatement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as an assembly worker
for approximately fourteen years. His duties mainly included
turning motors and pressing stators. A procedural agreement
exists in the Company which contains provisions for work mobility.
On 17th December, 1986 the worker was requested to carry out work
on connection of 80/40 Motors which he refused to do. Management
insisted that the worker carry out this work and he was given a
written instruction by the Company giving hime until the morning
of 19th December, 1986 to carry out the instructions (the worker
did not accept the written instructions which were then read out
to him). The worker did not carry out the work on 19th December,
1986 and was consequently suspended by the Company pending a full
investigation. On completion of this investigation the Company
dismissed the worker. The suspension of the worker on 19th
December, 1986 led to a work stoppage. Management closed the
Company on 22nd December, 1986 and re-opened with a phased return
to work commencing early in February, 1987. On 11th February,
1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 9th April,
1987 at which no agreement could be reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 19th May, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's main duties were turning and pressing, on
which he had an efficiency rating of approximately 166%. As
he spent most of his time at this work it yielded the most
bonus earnings to the worker. The connection work that the
worker was requested to do would not have resulted in the same
bonus and was not urgent, the worker therefore suggested to
the supervisor that other operatives (details supplied to the
Court) carry out the work.
3. 2. The case of this worker is part of a broader problem that
exists in the Company. For the last two years the Company has
been seeking changes in the bonus scheme in relation to
protection of earnings. Very little progress was made in 1986
and the result of the failure to agree on a re-structuring of
the bonus scheme led to a very tense climate. The worker's
refusal to carry out the work in December, 1986 was not a
refusal in the normal context of such a situation. The worker
was insisting that his earnings should not be adversely
affected (by changing to a different-operation) when he had
sufficient work to carry out himself and when other operatives
were available to carry out the connection work.
3. The worker regretted that he did not carry out the work
under protest, but was of the opinion that the supervisor was
unhelpful in the matter. The Company in terminating his
employment did not pay him the six weeks minimum notice to
which he was entitled.
4. The Union requested that the worker be re-instated on the
basis of a three or six months probationary period, at the
conclusion of which, if his service was satisfactory, he be
re-instated. If this were done it would substantially improve
the bad industrial relations climate that existed in the
Company at present. The Union assured the Court that such a
situation as occurred in the case of this worker would not be
repeated. Both workers and Union representatives have signed
pledges to the Company to abide by procedures and not to take
part in unofficial industrial action.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had previously carried out this job when
requested to do so. On a previous occasions when he had a
grievance on clocking on, about loss of earnings (bonus) on
this job he was awarded #300 by a Rights Commissioner. This
recommendation was appealed by the Company but upheld by the
Labour Court (Labour Court Recommendation NO. AD-78-84 of 27th
September, 1984 refers). This was accepted by both parties
and there were no misunderstandings by either side regarding
the future arrangements on such matters.
2. The worker was told to do a job which was part of his
duty. The worker was verbally requested to carry out the work
a number of times. Following consistent refusals by the
worker he was given a written warning (details supplied to the
Court) which was read out to him as he refused to accept it.
The written warning gave him until 8.00 a.m. on 19th December,
1986 to carry out the instructions. On 19th December, 1986
worker still refused to carry out the work and so management
had no option but to suspend him and carry out an
investigation. Following this investigation the worker was
dismissed as that was only option available to management.
4. 3. The worker was given due warning of suspension and advised
that if suspended, his record would be investigated, as a
result of which it was possible that his employment would be
terminated. However, he still refused to carry out the work
instructions. The Company is satisfied that every opportunity
was given to the worker to carry out the instructions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has noted the apparent difficulties which have been
occurring in this Company over the past years in relation to
productivity and the operation of the bonus incentive scheme which
have led to a poor industrial relations climate. This climate has
contributed to the present position of the claimant and the Court
therefore recommends that immediate discussions take place with a
view to resolving the outstanding productivity difficulties, the
successful resolution of which might encourage the Company to
consider a period of suspension of 6 months with a final warning
for the claimant. The Union for its part should take steps to
ensure that the mobility clause of the Company/Union Agreement
will operate without interruptions in production in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th June, 1987. Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./J.C. Deputy Chairman