Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88555 Case Number: LCR12064 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MEMOREX MEDIA PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - A GROUP OF WORKERS;FLAC |
Claim by four workers for right of recall to employment.
Recommendation:
6. The Court finds that these claimants were employed as
temporary employees and did not at any stage gain the status of
permanent employees or any right to recall in the event of
redundancy. The Court also finds that the Company's treatment of
the claimants was fair and in accordance with agreements with the
I.T.G.W.U.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88555 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12064
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MEMOREX MEDIA PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
A GROUP OF WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY FLAC)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by four workers for right of recall to employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The four workers concerned were employed in a temporary
capacity as production operatives on the night shift in the
Company's Clondalkin plant from 19th June, 1985. On 24th January,
1986 the workers were informed that they were being laid off
temporarily due to a decline in business and the situation would
be reviewed monthly for a six months period. Starting in June,
1986 the Company called back to work approximately fifteen
workers, in alphabetical order. Of the four workers concerned
here two were recalled on 16th June, 1986, one was recalled on
21st July, 1986 and the fourth was recalled on 18th August, 1986.
All workers recalled were informed that the return of workers from
long term illness would result in their being laid off again. On
5th September, 1986 the four workers were informed by letter that
their employment would be terminated on 12th September, 1986 and
that they would be paid £426.40 in full settlement of all monies
due. It was subsequently agreed between the Union and the Company
(by letters of 10th and 12th September, 1986) that temporary
workers would be laid off by October, 1986 and that a financial
settlement would be negotiated for those facing permanent lay-off.
On 11th September, 1986 three of the workers concerned here were
informed that they were to be laid off on 12th September, 1986 and
the fourth worker was informed on 1st October, 1986 that she was
to be laid off on 3rd October, 1986. The overall situation to be
reviewed at the end of October, 1986. On 12th December, 1986 all
four workers were paid the agreed redundancy payment of £426.40.
3. In November, 1986 the issue of recall was referred to the
Rights' Commissioner Service by three of the workers but the
Company did not agree to such an investigation. In February, 1987
the Union referred a number of issues including the right of
recall in the event of employment being available, to the Rights'
Commissioner Service. Again the Company refused to attend on the
basis that the workers had been paid a lump sum in full and final
settlement of all monies due and there would not be any additional
claims. In March, 1988 following an advertisement by the Company
for workers, the four workers concerned applied for employment but
were unsuccessful. Following this the four workers referred the
matter to the Rights Commissioners Service but the Company
objected to such an investigation. The workers are of the view
that they were laid off on the basis that they would have the
right of recall in the event of work becoming available. The
Company's position is that the lump sum was paid in full and final
settlement of all claims and the workers have no automatic right
of recall to work. In July, 1988 the four workers referred the
matter to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
workers agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
The Court investigated the dispute on 22nd September, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of the lay-off the workers were given the
impression that the factory might be closing down totally.
The four workers were laid off on the basis that they would
have the right of recall if work should be available again and
it was agreed unequivocally that the workers would be taken
back when and if the Company was re-employing. This is clear
from a letter sent by the Union to the Company in April, 1987
(details supplied to the Court) which stated that it was the
Union's understanding that if the Company was recruiting in
the future the workers would be selected from the entire
redundant workforce.
2. In March, 1988 the Company advertised for workers and
subsequently employed 30/40 workers. These four workers
applied for positions but were not recalled to work. No
reason was given for this. All four workers had good work
records and had been given excellent references by the Company
(details supplied to the Court). The Company has consistently
refused to allow a Rights' Commissioner to deal with the
dispute. In the circumstances, the workers should be recalled
to work and compensated for loss of wages which they have
suffered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers were all employed on temporary contracts and
were never appointed to permanent positions in the Company.
They had no entitlement to severance pay. A redundancy lump
sum was negotiated by the Union on their behalf which all the
workers accepted when they were declared redundant in
December, 1986. No commitment was ever given to the workers
that they would be re-employed or recalled following
redundancy. The Company has at all times acted in accordance
with agreements reached with the I.T.G.W.U. who has sole
negotiating rights for all general operatives.
2. During their employment the workers were treated in the
same manner as all other temporary workers in the Company and
received identical redundancy payments. The Company retains
the right to select whom it employs and has always done so on
the basis of suitability. In the circumstances there is no
basis for any claims being made in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court finds that these claimants were employed as
temporary employees and did not at any stage gain the status of
permanent employees or any right to recall in the event of
redundancy. The Court also finds that the Company's treatment of
the claimants was fair and in accordance with agreements with the
I.T.G.W.U.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
---------------
10th October, 1988. Chairman
U.M./J.C.