Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88260 Case Number: LCR11792 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Proposed lay-off of workers employed in the Office of Public Works Drainage Section - both construction and maintenance.
Recommendation:
6. Pending the completion of the review and consultation provided
for in Section 11 paragraph 11 of the Programme for National
Recovery, which according to the Union is imminent, the Court
recommends that the lay-offs should not take place.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88260 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11792
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Proposed lay-off of workers employed in the Office of Public
Works Drainage Section - both construction and maintenance.
BACKGROUND:
2. Because of a reduction in its budget allocation the Office of
Public Works proposed to introduce short-time working on drainage
schemes.
3. The Union objected to this proposal as it considered it to be
in breach of the Programme for National Recovery. It was not
possible to resolve the dispute at local level and the matter was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A
Conciliation Conference was held on 5th April, 1988.
4. As no agreement was possible both parties agreed to a referral
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 11th April, 1988. The Court's recommendation
was issued to the parties by letter on 14th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Office of Public Works is acting in breach of the
Programme for National Recovery and in breach of traditional
agreements in the Drainage Section. For drainage
construction workers, the period of employment was from the
commencement of the scheme or when the numbers required were
reduced because of completion of work. On maintenance, as
there are statutory responsibilities involved, the workers
concerned were in wholetime regular employment and not
normally subject to lay-off.
2. The lay-offs are an attempt to circumvent Clause II of
the Programme for National Recovery and are also an attempt
to reduce labour costs while not awaiting the result of the
voluntary redundancy scheme which has been taken up by a
considerable number of the workers concerned.
3. This dispute is also an attempt by the Office of Public
Works to avoid the full implications of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 11632 which stated that proposed
compulsory redundancies were in breach of the Programme for
National Recovery which lays down certain procedures viz -
"If in practice, however, the take-up of these voluntary
arrangements does not enable the Government's budgetary and
structural objectives to be met, the Government will review
the position but, in doing so, they undertake to consult
fully with the ICTU".
4. The decision is an example of discrimination in the
Public Service, whereby only the lower paid non-officer
grades are subject to such lay-off and short-time working
which cuts their earnings, reduces their superannuation and
gratuity entitlement and maintains constant insecurity in
their employment. While there are budgetary short-falls in
all sectors of the Public Service, only the principle of
voluntary redundancy applies. No one in the Civil Service or
the Administration of the Office of Public Works is being
subjected to the same compulsory loss of employment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Office takes the view that drainage maintenance and
construction workers were already on short time during 1987
when the Programme for National Recovery was agreed. The
proposed short time working in 1988 is but an unavoidable
extension of this.
2. The Court's attention is drawn to the fact that under the
proposed system of short time working the workers concerned,
having met qualification requirements, would be entitled to
full unemployment and pay related benefits for periods spent
on short time working. With income tax refunds this could
amount in some cases to 85% of normal gross pay.
3. The financial position of the Office has already been
outlined to the Court. It is perhaps relevant to point out
at this stage that there is no possibility of additional
monies being provided for drainage works either from central
funds or by way of virement from any other vote within the
Office. There is, therefore, no alternative to short time
working. The question before the Court is whether the
proposed short time working would or would not be in breach
of the Programme for National Recovery. There is no
reference in the Programme to short time working therefore it
cannot be in breach of the Programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Pending the completion of the review and consultation provided
for in Section 11 paragraph 11 of the Programme for National
Recovery, which according to the Union is imminent, the Court
recommends that the lay-offs should not take place.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd August, 1988 John M. Horgan
M.D./P.W. Chairman