Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89682 Case Number: AD8986 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FELDHUES GMBH - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 307/89 concerning compensation for lay-off.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submission made, the circumstances in
which the lay-off took place and the terms of the existing
Company/Union Agreement, the Court is of the opinion that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89682 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8689
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: FELDHUES GMBH
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
No. S.T. 307/89 concerning compensation for lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which employs 56 workers, is involved in the
production of pastata, a German cooked meat. The months of May
and June are usually the slack period for the business. During
May, 1989, business began to slacken off, but the Company were
optimistic about starting a new product line by the end of the
month. The Company felt confident that all the workers could be
retained and no lay-offs would be necessary. The Company informed
the workers to this effect. On 22nd May, 1989, the Company was
informed that the "moulds" for the new product, which were being
supplied from Holland, would not be available for delivery on the
agreed date. As this meant that production of the new product
could not go ahead and all other production had virtually ceased,
the Company advised staff that they would be laid off. The
Company contends that the 2nd shift were advised on 22nd May,
1989, that they would be laid off with effect from 25th May, 1989,
and that the 1st shift were advised on 23rd May, 1989, when they
arrived for work. The Union contends that apart from rumours of
lay-offs at the beginning of May, 1989, which were dismissed by
the Company, the first indication of lay-offs was on the evening
of 23rd May, 1989, but this could not be checked out as the
manager had left the factory. On arrival for work on the 24th
May, 1989, the workers were informed by management that they were
being laid off from finishing time that day. The Union contended
that the Company was in breach of agreement by failing to give
proper notice of the lay-off. The lay-off period varied from 3 to
4 days. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation. On 7th September, 1989, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation:
"The Company clearly did not engineer the stoppage of
production. There is no clause in the agreement covering
payments for lack of notice in lay-off. I therefore cannot
in the circumstances of this case recommend concession of the
claim."
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and on
27th September, 1989, they appealed it to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 22nd November, 1989, in Monaghan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is aware that companies can occasionally be
faced with situations outside their control that necessitate a
lay-off. However, a company must have due regard to its
obligations concerning its workers and should notify them in
good time of any lay-offs. This did not happen in this
instance. Whilst the Company claim that the lay-offs resulted
from a delay in the supply of new moulds, the Union believes
that managements forward production planning process left a
lot to be desired.
2. The Company could have found alternative employment for
the workers rather than lay them off, but in saying that, it
is totally unacceptable that inadequate notice of lay-off was
given to the workers. The contract of employment was broken
by the Company by the failure to give adequate notice.
3. Under the circumstances the Company could have safeguarded
the workers' earnings. The workers are deeply annoyed at the
Company's indifference to their losses. The Union demands
that no loss of earnings should accrue to the workers and that
compensation should be provided.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company did everything possible to avert a lay-off by
attempting to start a new product. The delay in receiving the
moulds necessary for the new product was totally outside the
Company's control. As soon as the Company discovered that
there would be no possibility of work the workers were given
notice of the lay-off.
2. The Company has over the past few years had to institute
lay-offs for different circumstances outside its control. In
these instances no compensation was paid. The Company cannot
pay workers while they are not at work because without
production there is no income.
3. The Company did not, as the Union alleged, breach any
agreement in instituting the lay-off, but simply followed the
agreed procedures laid down in the Company/Union Agreement,
(details provided to the Court).
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submission made, the circumstances in
which the lay-off took place and the terms of the existing
Company/Union Agreement, the Court is of the opinion that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
11th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.