Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88304 Case Number: LCR11902 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROADSTONE DUBLIN LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of one worker concerning his redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. 1. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions
made by the parties, is satisfied that a redundancy situation
existed in the Contracts Section which inevitably affected the
claimant's job and the Company states that it has not
alternative work for him.
2. Having regard to all the circumstances, including the
issue of notice not being given direct to the claimant or his
Union, the Court recommends that the Company should now pay
him the sum of £1,000 in addition to any other monies due to
him under established redundancy arrangements.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88304 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11902
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROADSTONE DUBLIN LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of one worker concerning his
redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to a decline in the level of business and heavy losses in
the Contracts Section at Allen Quarry, the Company decided that in
order to retain business the use of contractors was the only
option open to it. In November, 1987, the Company entered into
negotiations with the Automobile, General Engineering and
Mechanical Operatives' Union (AGEMOU), who represented the
majority of the employees in the section. As a result of these
negotiations agreement was reached whereby the workers accepted a
redundancy package based on the Company's redundancy terms and an
agreement whereby the workers would be assigned contract work on a
subcontract basis. The Company would supply the customer and
materials and the former workers would undertake the contract.
The worker concerned who was not a member of A.G.E.M.O.U., was a
driver in the Contracts Section. The Union on learning of the
redundancy of its member contacted the Company advising of its
opposition to the redundancy and of the Company's failure to
consult with the Union as per the Company/Union Comprehensive
Agreement. The Union also contended that there was sufficient
work at the Allen Quarry to keep the worker concerned employed.
The Company maintained that negotiations had taken place with the
majority union and the worker concerned had ample opportunity to
discuss the issue with the Company, but had chosen not do do so.
The Company also maintained that it was not in a position to
retain direct employees, and the majority union had accepted this
position. On 9th March, 1988, the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. As no agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 22nd April, 1988, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 20th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At no time from the outset of the dispute did the Company
give proper notification of its intention to enforce a
unilateral redundancy. The Company have refused to observe
the terms of the Company/Union Comprehensive Agreement. At no
time would the Company agree to meet the Union to discuss the
matter despite repeated telephone calls and correspondence.
The Company does not have a right, based on a majoritarian
principle, to impose an agreement concluded with another
union, on the worker concerned.
2. The Company does not have the right within the terms of
the Comprehensive Agreement to enforce unilaterally a
redundancy upon the worker concerned.
3. The Company has a policy to coerce its permanent
employees, out of their permanent status and to reconstitute
them as subcontractors. The Union contends that the Company
is manipulating these circumstances to create an environment
of insecurity and to profit from such an environment by
creating a redundancy situation leading to the subcontracting
of services. The worker concerned is at the brunt end of this
policy.
4. The lorry driven by the worker concerned, which operated
60% of the time into the Belgard Plant serving the Contract
Section and supplying equipment, has been idle in Allen
Quarry, whilst hackers are operating there on a full-time
basis. There is sufficient work to keep him in full-time
employment.
5. Whilst the worker concerned was integrated with the
Contract Section, he was never at any time a constituent
member of the group. He did most of his work out of the
Belgard Plant. As he was not the most junior person within
the location, he would have been entitled to retain his
position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company continues to experience serious problems in
the market place. Several attempts have been made over the
years to get it into shape, without success. The Company
could not continue with the operation as it was and had no
alternative but to close the Contracts Section at Allen Quarry
and declare all the workers redundant.
2. From January, 1985, to October, 1987, the Company has had
numerous discussions with the representatives of the Contracts
Section over a wide range of issues. There was ample
opportunity for the Union to become involved if they so
wished. The Company did not refuse to talk to the Union
during the discussions which took place over a period of
years. It was normal practice for the Company to deal with
the majority trade union, except where a specific request had
been made.
3. The worker concerned must have been fully aware of all the
developments which took place. It was only at the last minute
that the Union became involved. The Company could not make an
exception in the worker's case. The Comprehensive Agreement
provides that redundancy will apply on the basis of seniority
within each location by plant type or type of operation. The
Contracts Section was a separate operation to the quarry. The
worker concerned was a member of the Contracts Section. He
was not the most senior driver or worker in the Section. The
Company does not have an alternative position for him.
4. The position at Allen Quarry is equally serious. The
employees there have been on short-time working for a number
of years. Dublin Contracts is suffering the same problems and
at present a third of the workers are on lay-off. No section
of the Company has escaped redundancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. 1. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions
made by the parties, is satisfied that a redundancy situation
existed in the Contracts Section which inevitably affected the
claimant's job and the Company states that it has not
alternative work for him.
2. Having regard to all the circumstances, including the
issue of notice not being given direct to the claimant or his
Union, the Court recommends that the Company should now pay
him the sum of £1,000 in addition to any other monies due to
him under established redundancy arrangements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_____________________
17th June, 1988.
B.O'N./J.C. Deputy Chairman