Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88283 Case Number: LCR11900 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of three former employees for re-employment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that these claimants have no residual rights
to re-engagement under the terms of the redundancy agreement or
any other agreement. The Court recommends that the Union
acknowledge this position and that the Company then interview the
three claimants and inform them individually of their future
employment prospects with the Company.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88283 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11900
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of three former employees for re-employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been engaged in the manufacture of shower
products at Bailieboro, Co. Cavan for the past 22 years. In
April, 1986, reorganisation took place arising from losses
incurred. This involved 28 redundancies in the Accessory
Division. The Union sought agreement from the Company on a
re-engagement procedure. In a letter dated 12th September, 1986
the Company stated that if jobs became available they would be
offered to redundant staff as follows:-
" (1) Long service layoff (3 persons).
(2) Compulsory redundant staff (those persons made
redundant at the end of May, 1986).
(3) Persons on layoff.
(4) Compulsory redundant staff (those with a choice of
layoff at the end of July, 1986).
(5) Those persons who accepted voluntary redundancy.
Former employees would be recalled in order of seniority,
subject to their suitability for the particular job to be
filled.
Duration of the agreement: 1 year."
This letter however, was not finalised as an agreement.
The Company commenced recruitment in June, 1987 and by January,
1988 had re-engaged all those made redundant who wished to return
to work with the exception of three individuals. In April, 1988
the Company recruited eight new workers. The Union sought
re-engagement of the three workers but the Company was not
prepared to enter into discussions on this matter. The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 23rd
February, 1988 and a conciliation conference was held on 20th
April, 1988. No agreement being reached, the matter was referred
to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on
16th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union considers that there was no justification for
redundancies in 1986. A temporary shortage of orders and cash
flow difficulties could have been overcome by an arrangement
on lay-off and/or short-time.
2. The workers concerned are general operatives, two female
and one male, all of whom enjoyed permanent status prior to
redundancy. They had all successfully undergone a 3-month
period of probation and up to 5 years of normal production
duties. Only one of them had received any form of warning
during that time and none of them had been terminated on
disciplinary grounds prior to being declared redundant.
3. All other redundant workers who wished to return to work
for the Company were re-engaged.
4. One of the claimants still retains the letter of
termination received in May, 1986 from the factory manager
which expresses regret at the need to terminate her employment
and thanking her for her co-operation and excellent work
during employment with the Company. The others received
similar letters of appreciation and regret. The Works
Agreement states that "the Company will have sole right to
recruit workers from any source" and goes on to say "When, in
the opinion of the Company, candidates are of equal merit,
then preference will be given to members of the IT&GWU". In
this instance, the Company has opted to recruit employees whom
they only know through interview in preference to former
employees, whom they rated as the above letter states as
"excellent workers". The Company has ignored the fact that
the claimants are members of the IT&GWU and should have got
priority on that basis alone.
5. The Union considers that the workers concerned have been
unfairly treated and that the only satisfactory redress for
them is to be re-engaged immediately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancies implemented in 1986 were not contingent
on an agreement on recall.
2. The Company's offer as set out in its letter of 12th
September, 1986, is more than reasonable.
3. The Union in attempting to compel the Company to re-employ
the claimants, is in breach of the Company/Union Agreement
which states:-
" CLAUSE 4 (4.1).
Union Membership:
The Irish Transport & General Workers' Union
agrees that the Company shall have sole right to
recruit workers from any source and undertakes
to accept into membership, any workers recruited
by the Company in the categories to whom this
Agreement applies. When, in the opinion of the
Company, candidates are of equal merit then
preference will be given to members of the Irish
Transport & General Workers' Union. "
It is fundamental to the concept of being an employer that one
can reject job applications or refuse to offer employment.
4. The claimants contracts of employment ceased with the
Company in 1986. To accept that they have a legitimate claim
for re-employment with the Company at this time is arbitrary
and is an acknowledgement that any redundant employee has a
legitimate future claim for re-employment on his former
employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that these claimants have no residual rights
to re-engagement under the terms of the redundancy agreement or
any other agreement. The Court recommends that the Union
acknowledge this position and that the Company then interview the
three claimants and inform them individually of their future
employment prospects with the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John M. Horgan
___16th___June,____1988. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Chairman