Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88457 Case Number: LCR11999 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
A claim that two fitters, who have completed their apprenticeships, should be offered employment by Dublin Corporation for a short fixed term.
Recommendation:
8. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is satisfied that the claimants were not covered by the
Agreement relating to short-term employment. Accordingly the
Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court has noted the Corporation's undertaking that they will
employ the claimants in any appropriate fillable vacancy arising
in the future.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88457 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11999
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim that two fitters, who have completed their
apprenticeships, should be offered employment by Dublin
Corporation for a short fixed term.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Corporation has employed apprentices in a large range of
trades over the years. Up to 1987 the Corporation was in a
position to employ ex-apprentices as trade persons provided they
satisfied the following conditions -
(a) the apprenticeship was completed satisfactorily;
(b) work available as a trade person;
(c) finance available to pay the wages etc., of the
employee(s) concerned.
3. Because of its deteriorating financial position over the last
few years the Corporation, indicated to the Union in 1986, that it
was unable to maintain the level of recruitment of apprentices.
Following discussions it was agreed that the level of recruitment
would be maintained and that the existing mechanical apprentices
would on completion of their apprenticeships, be offered short
term employment contracts of eleven months duration.
4. For the period 1987/1988 the Corporation informed the Union
that it would only be able to offer short-term contracts to six
ex-apprentices and that it was not in a position to offer
contracts to a number of other apprentices (including the two who
are the subject of this claim) subsequent to the completion of
their apprenticeships satisfactorily.
5. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 19th April, 1988. A Conciliation Conference was
held on 24th June, 1988. As no agreement was reached both parties
agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 28th July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers concerned were employed in the Waterworks
Section and the Sewers and Main Drainage Section. The
Corporation in refusing to offer these workers short-term
contracts argued that the Agreement reached in 1986, was in
respect of those fitters (9) employed as motor mechanics.
The Union refutes this argument as it is inconceivable that
the Union would negotiate such an agreement to the exclusion
of the two members here concerned.
2. The workers concerned, in addition to their normal
duties, also worked on trucks and motor cars.
3. Initially it was the intention of the Corporation to
cease recruiting apprentices altogether. Up to that time all
apprentices employed in the Corporation were treated the same
as any other manual worker as can be borne out by their
employment contracts (details supplied to the Court). The
Union, at that time, considered it more appropriate to
terminate the employment of apprentices when they had
completed their service and offer them short-term contracts
in order to maintain the level of recruitment of new
apprentices at the rate of three a year. By refusing to
offer the workers concerned short-term contracts the
Corporation has reneged on the 1986 Agreement.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Corporation is unable to offer subsequent employment
even of a short term nature to the two ex-apprentice fitters,
irrespective of their suitability and availability of work,
because of the dire financial situation of the Corporation
(details supplied to the Court). If in the future the
position in the Corporation improves and suitable vacancies
arise, preference will be given to the apprentices who have
had their employment terminated.
2. There is no commitment, statutory or otherwise, on the
Corporation to offer subsequent employment as a tradesperson
to two ex-apprentice fitters. Their apprenticeship was
governed by the Industrial Training Act. Apprenticeship
lasts for a specified period after which the employer is
under no obligation to employ the ex-apprentice as a
tradesperson.
3. Any commitment given by the Corporation in the course of
negotiations about ex-apprentice motor mechanics, which led
to their being offered short term contracts, was in relation
to ex-apprentice motor mechanics only and not in relation to
the two ex-apprentice fitters involved in this dispute.
4. Any concession of the Union's claim could have serious
repercussive effects not only in relation to the apprentices
who have already completed their apprenticeship without
re-employment, but in relation to future apprentices
completing their apprenticeships.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is satisfied that the claimants were not covered by the
Agreement relating to short-term employment. Accordingly the
Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court has noted the Corporation's undertaking that they will
employ the claimants in any appropriate fillable vacancy arising
in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th August, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman