Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88782 Case Number: LCR12072 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the lay-off of one hundred and eighty drainage construction workers.
Recommendation:
11. Having regard to the general context of the agreement on the
Programme for National Recovery, it appears to the Court that the
lay-offs are probably in breach of that agreement.
The Court therefore recommends that, pending the outcome of the
meeting of the central review committee on Wednesday 26th October,
which should reach a definitive view on the matter, the workers
who have been laid off should be re-employed immediately.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88782 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12072
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 lay-off of one hundred and eighty
drainage construction workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1988 the Office of Public Works (O.P.W.) proposed to
lay-off construction and drainage workers because of a shortfall
in its budget allocation. The Union objected to the lay-offs and
the matter was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on 11th
April, 1988.
3. In Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR11792 the Court
recommended "pending the completion of the review and consultation
provided for in Section 11, paragraph 11, of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.), which according to the Union is
imminent, the Court recommends that the lay-offs should not take
place."
4. Following receipt of the recommendation the O.P.W. reviewed
its position in consultation with the Department of the Taoiseach
and the Department of Finance.
5. At a meeting held on the 24th May, 1988 the O.P.W. informed
the Union, that as the Department of Finance would not allocate
extra finance the office had no alternative but to proceed with
the lay-offs in spite of the Court's recommendation. The Union
replied that they would not accept this and would refer the matter
to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (I.C.T.U.).
6. Representatives of I.C.T.U. subsequently met with
representatives of the Department of the Taoiseach to discuss the
proposed lay-offs. On the 28th July, 1988 the following agreed
statement was issued.
"1. The Commissioners for Public Works have stated that there
is a financial need to introduce short time working for
workers on O.P.W. drainage, construction and maintenance
schemes. At present projections this will operate at a
level of six weeks, three weeks and one week for different
groups between now and the end of the year to produce the
required saving.
2. The Union side, while not agreeing that short time working
should be introduced, recognise that, if an alternative
solution is not found, short time working will be
implemented by the Commissioners for Public Works to
achieve the required saving.
3. The Union side have requested and the Commissioners for
Public Works are prepared to agree to defer short time
working until 1st October but any short time working
necessary will have to take place between then and
end-1988. Alternative solutions will be explored between
now and end-September and the position will be reviewed
before end-September."
7. On the 11th October, 1988 a further meeting took place between
the O.P.W., Departments of Finance, Taoiseach and I.C.T.U.
representatives who were told that unless additional funding was
forthcoming from the Department of Finance the O.P.W. had no
alternative but to proceed with the lay-offs. The Minister for
Finance subsequently advised that no further funding would be
provided for drainage operations.
8. On 17th October, 1988 the O.P.W. layed-off 180 drainage
constructions workers. The Union objected to the lay-offs and
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 19th October, 1988.
The Court's recommendation was issued to the parties by letter on
the same day.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The imposition of the lay-offs is in breach of the
P.N.R. Clause 11 states that "If in practice, however, the
take-up of these voluntary arrangements does not enable the
Government's budgetary and structural objectives to be met,
the Government will review the position but, in doing so, they
undertake to consult fully with I.C.T.U. Such prior
consultations will take place under the review mechanism
provided for in the programme." These lay-offs have also
taken place despite commitments given during the talks on the
P.N.R. that there would be an end to lay-offs in the Public
Service. Without a termination of such lay-offs the voluntary
redundancy package has little meaning for State industrial
employees.
2. The Court is asked to uphold the Union's view that there
is an obligation on the Government to pay the wages of those
who do not opt for voluntary redundancy when they have given a
commitment to reaching their budgetary targets through
"voluntary" arrangements. It is unfair to place the Office of
Public Works in an invidious position, as an agent of the
Government, obliged to comply with agreements entered into by
Government but denied the necessary funds to do so. There is
bitter resentment also in the ranks of the workers against a
policy which singles them out for cuts in living standards and
constant job insecurity, irrespective of how much service or
commitment they give to their employer. In effect, they are
being penalised by "lock-out" this week because they opted to
work rather than draw redundancy lump sums or be dependent
upon Social Welfare payments.
3. Since the issue of the agreed statement of 28th July,
1988, The Union has consistently demanded that the Department
of Finance explore alternatives to lay-offs and pointed out
that transferring full-time workers from the Office of Public
Workers to Social Welfare payments contributed nothing to
prudent budgetary policy. It is actually more costly on the
Exchequer to have such lay-offs while maintaining plant and
machinery under-utilised, maintaining supervisory and
managerial staff in place and increasing the long-term overall
cost of a drainage construction scheme. It is obvious that
the Government made an inadequate financial allocation to the
O.P.W. for pay purposes if it was ever intended to honour the
commitment to a voluntary redundancies policy. They have
refused either to consider a solution based on managing within
the overall Government budgetary figures or an O.P.W.
programme approach to drainage construction work where the
cost overrun this year could be accounted for over the total
period of the project.
4. It is clear that if the Department of Finance can
unilaterally impose lay-offs in one of its own agencies, city
and county managers in local authorities faced with falling
revenues will very likely revert to the same unfair practice.
Such practices are not acceptable to I.C.T.U. and it is
intended to raise the matter formally at the Central Review
Committee on 26th October, 1988. The Court is asked to
endorse that position as the only fair and equitable one for
the workers concerned.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Office of Public Works contends that the review
involving itself and the Departments of the Taoiseach and
Finance, the result of which was communicated to the relevant
Ministers, constituted a Government review as provided for in
the Programme. It also contends that the meeting between
representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the
Department of the Taoiseach, which gave rise to the statement
issued on 28th July, fully satisfied the requirement in the
Programme for full consultation with the Irish Congress of
Trade Unions. A further meeting took place on 11th October,
1988 between the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance, the
Office of Public Works and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions
to discuss the proposed short time working. At that meeting,
the I.C.T.U. representatives were told that unless additional
funding were provided by the Government the Office of Public
Works would have no option but to go ahead with short time
working as planned. Subsequent to that meeting, the Minister
for Finance confirmed that no additional funding would be
provided for drainage operations.
2. Since the O.P.W. had no scope within its own vote to
divert other moneys to the drainage area it was left with no
alternative to short time working. The Court's attention is
drawn to the Union side's recognition, in the agreed statement
of 28th July, 1988, that short time working would be
implemented if an alternative solution could not be found.
The position of the Office of Public Works in relation to the
funding required to maintain these workers in full time
employment has changed only for the better in the meantime.
In fact the proposed short time working of 6 weeks on
construction schemes has now been reduced to 4 weeks.
3. Having regard to the facts, the Office of Public Works
contends that it is not in breach of the P.N.R. in
implementing short time working.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. Having regard to the general context of the agreement on the
Programme for National Recovery, it appears to the Court that the
lay-offs are probably in breach of that agreement.
The Court therefore recommends that, pending the outcome of the
meeting of the central review committee on Wednesday 26th October,
which should reach a definitive view on the matter, the workers
who have been laid off should be re-employed immediately.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
25th October, 1988. Chairman
M.D./J.C.