Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88648 Case Number: LCR12085 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: R & H. HALL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for the retention in employment of a worker, and for compensation for a period of unemployment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the claims made by the Union and the
submissions made by the parties. It seems to the Court that the
takeover of Merchants Warehousing and the subsequent termination
of the worker's employment with that Company ended the formal
agreement concerning the temporary employment of the worker at the
grain silo.
However, since R & H Hall did offer and continued the temporary
employment of the other tower operator, the Court is of the
opinion that the worker here concerned has been unfairly treated
and recommends that R & H Hall pay him the sum of #250
compensation for loss of the temporary employment in the silos.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88648 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12085
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: R & H. HALL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the retention in employment of a
worker, and for compensation for a period of unemployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this case was employed as a tower
operator by Merchants Warehousing Public Limited Company at its
grain silo in Dublin Port until August, 1987. In June, 1987 the
company advised the Union that it was negotiating the sale of the
grain silo to one of its shareholders R & H Hall plc. The Union
entered into joint discussions with both companies concerning the
continued employment of the worker under the new ownership. The
Union was joined in these negotiations by another Union who
represented a second tower operator. They were informed that the
new owners proposed introducing a new system of handling the grain
which would eliminate the job of the tower operators. The Unions
claimed that the two men should be retained in their positions
until the new system became operational. At a meeting on the 20th
of August, 1987, it was confirmed that the two men, one of whom is
the worker concerned in this dispute would be retained as tower
operators. They would be on secondment to R & H Hall but would
remain the permanent employees of Merchants Warehousing plc.
This arrangement was in operation between August, 1987 and
January, 1988. In January, 1988, however, Merchants Warehousing
plc was taken over by the Goodman International Group. on 29th
February, 1988, the vast majority of the employees of Merchants
Warehousing plc were declared redundant, including the worker
concerned in this dispute. At the time in question, the worker
was absent from his employment, due to illness. The Union was
informed by the new owners of Merchants Warehousing plc that the
worker was being made redundant and would not be returning when he
finished with R & H Hall. The Union also learned that the worker
would not be employed by R & H Hall in the future. On 9th March,
1988 the Union wrote to R & H Hall seeking a meeting to discuss
the matter. On 20th April, 1988, it received a reply stating that
since the worker was no longer employed by Merchants Warehousing
plc he had no relationship with R & H Hall. The Union was unable
to make further progress at local level, and on 9th May, 1988 it
wrote to both R & H Hall plc and to Merchants Warehousing plc,
informing both companies that the Union was in dispute with them,
and was referring the dispute to the Labour Court. On 16th May,
1988, Merchants Warehousing plc wrote to the Union stating that
the worker had been made redundant, and that the matter of his
continued employment with R & H Hall should be taken up with that
Company. Neither company was prepared to attend a Labour Court
conciliation conference on the matter, and on 8th August, 1988 the
Union referred the case to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union claim is that the
worker should be retained in employment by R & H Hall until the
tower operation ceases, and that he be compensated for the period
of his non-employment. On 13th September the union wrote to the
Court confirming that it agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. On 23rd September, 1988, the Federated Union of
Employers wrote to the Court on behalf of Merchants Warehousing
plc, stating that this company had respectfully declined to attend
a Labour Court hearing on the dispute, as the worker concerned had
been made redundant by that company in February, 1988, and it did
not believe that it could assist in the resolution of the dispute.
A Labour Court hearing attended by the Union and R & H Hall plc,
took place in Dublin on 30th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was a clearcut agreement made between the Union, R &
H Hall, and Merchants Warehousing in August, 1987. This
agreement provided for the employment of the worker by R & H
Hall until the tower operation ceased. The Union considers
that both companies have reneged on their responsibility to
the worker and on their commitment to the Union. The fact
that the worker was made redundant by Merchants Warehousing in
February, 1988 should have no bearing on his continued
retention by R & H Hall until the tower operation ceases.
Merchants Warehousing has reneged on its responsibility by
refusing to make sufficient effort to ensure that R & H Hall
employed the worker.
2. The other worker involved in the tower operation was
retained in employment, and has since been employed by R & H
Hall plc. The worker represented by this union has been very
badly treated by both companies who are parties to the
dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the period of his secondment, the worker remained
in the employment of Merchants Warehousing plc, and indeed was
paid by the latter. Subsequently, Merchants Warehousing plc
was acquired by another company, and its employees were
declared redundant on 29th February, 1988. Consequently, the
worker was not available for secondment to R & H Hall plc.
2. During the period when the redundancies from Merchants
Warehousing took place, the worker was absent from his
employment for an extended period (details supplied to the
Court).
3. From the Company's viewpoint, it is not sustainable for
the Union to argue that the understanding of July, 1987 would
entitle the worker to subsequent employment as an R & H Hall
employee. At the meeting of July, 1987 it was not anticipated
that a redundancy situation would arise. The understanding
was that when R & H Hall introduced the new grab discharge
plant, the secondment arrangement would end and the worker
would revert to alternative duties with Merchants Warehousing
plc. However, the takeover and subsequent redundancy
intervened. This was certainly not the fault of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the claims made by the Union and the
submissions made by the parties. It seems to the Court that the
takeover of Merchants Warehousing and the subsequent termination
of the worker's employment with that Company ended the formal
agreement concerning the temporary employment of the worker at the
grain silo.
However, since R & H Hall did offer and continued the temporary
employment of the other tower operator, the Court is of the
opinion that the worker here concerned has been unfairly treated
and recommends that R & H Hall pay him the sum of #250
compensation for loss of the temporary employment in the silos.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
25th October, 1988. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.