Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88760 Case Number: LCR12260 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEMICO IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the principle of seniority in lay-off/recall situations.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is satisfied that the Company were in breach of the Company/Union
Agreement with regard to lay-offs. The Court is also satisfied
that the existing Agreement is not practical in the situation
which now exists in the Company. The Court recommends therefore
that the parties commence negotiations immediately with a view to
agreeing terms of a new agreement.
As the Company were in breach of the Agreement the Court further
recommends that each of the five (5) individuals who were laid-off
be paid an amount equal to half the actual loss, incurred and
established for each, for the period involved.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88760 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12260
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BEMICO IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the principle of seniority in
lay-off/recall situations.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which employs 51 full-time people, is located in
New Ross and manufactures garden furniture. When first set up the
products were made of tubular steel ('conventional'). In response
to market demands for all weather furniture i.e. plastic, the
Company in the summer of 1987, started manufacturing plastic
furniture. The production process is by injection moulding and it
was necessary for the Company to recruit some outside personnel
for this operation.
3. The conventional and plastic furniture require two completely
different processes and as a result there are two units operating
within the Company. The conventional furniture is manufactured on
day work whilst the plastic furniture is manufactured on a
continuous 4 shift operation.
4. The business is seasonal and annual short-term lay-offs have
been a feature of employment. The Company pays #230 to each
person laid-off. In the summer of 1988 a period of 8 weeks
lay-off occurred in the unit producing conventional furniture.
The injection moulding unit was not affected. Five of the
material handlers in the injection moulding unit were retained out
of seniority.
5. The Company/Union agreement provides for the operation of the
principle of seniority in the event of a lay-off or redundancy.
The Union lodged a claim for compensation for loss of earnings on
behalf of the workers who were passed over on the seniority list
on the basis that the Company was in breach of the agreement. The
Company rejected the claim and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 19th August, 1988. A
conciliation conference was held on 22nd September, 1988. As no
agreement was possible both parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Waterford on 24th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company/Union agreement provides for the operation of
the principle of seniority in the event of lay-off or
redundancy. This principle has been adhered to in the many
periods of lay-off and recall which occurred involving both
permanent and seasonal employees.
2. The possibility of difficulties arising in respect of
seniority was raised by the Union three years ago when the new
injection moulding operation was being set up. At that time
the Company recruited outside personnel for the new operation
and the Union reminded the Company that these employees would
not be exempt from the last in first out principle in the
event of redundancy or lay-off. The Company accepted that
this would in fact be the position. The further filling of
vacancies in the moulding unit took place from existing
factory personnel on a voluntary basis. Those who did not
volunteer did so on the clear understanding that seniority
continued to apply on an overall basis.
3. Just before the annual holiday and lay-off was to take
place in July, 1988, the Company indicated its intention to
retain injection moulding personnel out of seniority. This
was clearly a blatant breach of agreement. The Union expects
the Court to recommend that the agreement on overall seniority
should stand unless and until otherwise agreed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company is not opposed to the principle of seniority.
The old seniority list was agreed before the structure of the
business changed with the introduction of injection moulding.
The Company argues that it is no longer workable and that
there should be 2 seniority lists, one for 'conventional' and
one for plastic.
2. There is an extensive training period in injection
moulding. Some training is formal, more is an incremental
'on-the-job' learning process. The training cannot be carried
out in a short period. Quality control is a crucial element
of the material handler's job and a large part of the training
refers to matters of quality.
7. 3. There is a two-way cost if the Company was to use the old
seniority list.
(1) The cost of training operations from 'scratch'.
(2) The resource of trained employees which would be
wasted.
4. There are safety considerations. When the injection
moulding was introduced there was a number of accidents
arising from a lack of familiarity with this type of
operation. In a redundancy situation these considerations
would have to be re-examined and the Company would be prepared
to enter discussions with the Union. However it is the view
of the Company that in an instance of temporary lay-off the
cost of substituting the material handlers cannot be
justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is satisfied that the Company were in breach of the Company/Union
Agreement with regard to lay-offs. The Court is also satisfied
that the existing Agreement is not practical in the situation
which now exists in the Company. The Court recommends therefore
that the parties commence negotiations immediately with a view to
agreeing terms of a new agreement.
As the Company were in breach of the Agreement the Court further
recommends that each of the five (5) individuals who were laid-off
be paid an amount equal to half the actual loss, incurred and
established for each, for the period involved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___7th___February,__1989. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman