Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD887 Case Number: LCR11632 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the proposed compulsory redundancies of 53 workers employed on arterial drainage schemes.
Recommendation:
5. In the Court's view the Union's interpretation of the terms of
the Programme for National Recovery is correct and the Court
therefore finds that the compulsory redundancies now proposed by
the Office of Public Works which are attributable solely to
financial cutbacks in the allocation to the O.P.W. are in breach
of the agreement.
As it is the Court's policy to support the implementation of the
agreement, it recommends that the notices of redundancy be
withdrawn.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD887 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11632
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed compulsory redundancies of 53
workers employed on arterial drainage schemes.
BACKGROUND:
2. At a meeting held on the 26th November, 1987, the O.P.W.
informed the Union that because its allocation for 1988 for
arterial drainage work had been reduced it was necessary to make
130 workers employed at Monaghan Blackwater and the Boyle and
Bonnet schemes redundant. A total of 77 workers applied for the
Public Service Voluntary Redundancy package leaving a balance of
53 workers 27 at Monaghan Blackwater and 26 at Boyle/Bonnet. The
O.P.W. sought to make these workers compulsorily redundant. The
Union rejected the compulsory nature of the redundancies and
requested that notice of redundancy be withdrawn. The O.P.W.
refused to accede to this request. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 22nd December, 1987.
A conciliation conference was held on 6th January, 1988. As no
agreement was reached both parties agreed to refer the issue to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 8th January, 1988. The redundancy notices
were due to expire on the 8th January, 1988. The O.P.W. deferred
the notice for a week pending the issue of the Court's
recommendation. The Court issued a letter recommendation on 8th
January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposed compulsory redundancies are contrary to the
provisions of the Programme for National Recovery. Section
2 paragraph 11 of Programme for National Recovery sets out
the criteria for obtaining redundancies in the Public
Service. Under the Plan the Government is committed to
obtaining these redundancies on a voluntary basis.
2. The workers concerned are covered by the Programme for
National Recovery. They had a reasonable expectation of
permanency of work on arterial drainage schemes. On the
schemes involved in this dispute there is about 18 months to
2 years work left.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancies are necessary because of the reduction
in the Office's allocation for drainage work. The workers
concerned never had the status of permanent employees. Their
employment has always been dependant on monies voted in the
Dail on arterial drainage works. The numbers employed has
depended on the amount of monies available and accordingly
these numbers have fluctuated as money was or was not
provided. Drainage workers have always being liable to be
made redundant. The Programme for National Recovery did not
change this in any way.
2. In other areas where the Office had its budget reduced it
did not make any worker compulsorily redundant even though
the required number of redundancies was not achieved on a
voluntary basis. The Office considered that workers were
covered in such instances by the Programme for National
Recovery (details supplied to the Court).
3. In challenging the Offices powers on this occasion and in
attempting to invoke Section II clause II of the Programme,
the Union is in effect contending that the Plan confers on
these workers a new guarantee of security of employment that
they never enjoyed before. The Office does not accept this
as a valid interpretation of Clause II.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the Court's view the Union's interpretation of the terms of
the Programme for National Recovery is correct and the Court
therefore finds that the compulsory redundancies now proposed by
the Office of Public Works which are attributable solely to
financial cutbacks in the allocation to the O.P.W. are in breach
of the agreement.
As it is the Court's policy to support the implementation of the
agreement, it recommends that the notices of redundancy be
withdrawn.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd January, 1988 John M. Horgan
M.D./P.W. Chairman