Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89384 Case Number: LCR12450 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for the application of lay-off terms to workers laid-off at Croghan Briquette Works in November, 1988.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that the Company has the right to use the
most economic method of transport to do its business where no
redundancy or lay-off is involved as a result. In this case the
Court is of the view that the lay-offs could have been postponed
had the Union co-operated with the Company's proposals to transfer
the build-up of stock to alternative storage. It seems that
lay-offs would have taken place in any event at a later stage
because of the poor sales and that terms would likely have been
negotiated prior to the event. In the circumstances the Court
recommends that the staff superannuation contributions for half of
the period of these particular lay-offs should be paid by the
Company.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89384 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12450
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the application of lay-off terms to workers laid-off
at Croghan Briquette Works in November, 1988.
BACKGROUND:
2. Poor sales in Winter 1987/88 resulted in the accumulation of
excessive stocks of peat briquettes. Production was stopped for a
period in the Summer of 1988 resulting in the workforce being
laid-off. The terms under which the workers were laid-off were
agreed beforehand (Appendix 1).
Production resumed in Autumn 1988. Sales were again poor in the
following Winter and excessive stocks accumulated again. The most
accute excess was at Croghan where large quantities had to be
stored outdoors.
In November, 1988 the Company proposed re-locating this stock in
order to protect its quality and to allow production to continue
at Croghan. Having in April, 1988 hired a contractor to
re-locate stocks from Croghan and having found that contracting
out was more economical than direct labour, the Company again
hired a contractor but its loader drivers refused to load the
briquettes. A proposal emerged from local discussions that half
the work would be done by direct labour but it was rejected by the
Company before it could be put to the workforce. Production
stopped and, except for those required to maintain sales, the
workforce was laid-off. The Union is seeking to have the June,
1988 terms applied to the lay-off. The Company's position is that
it is not prepared to apply lay-off terms in the situation because
it did not seek the lay-off at that time. No agreement could be
reached at local level or at a conciliation conference held on
14th February, 1989, and on the 25th May the matter was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on the 13th June, 1989 at which the Union
stated that the most important issue was the payment of
superannuation contributions for the lay-off period.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejected the use of contract lorries and
drivers to transport the briquettes because at the time major
redundancies were occurring throughout the Company and the
Union had decided not to co-operate with the replacement of
direct labour with contract labour.
2. The Company has attempted to attribute the cause of the
production stop and lay-offs to this incident. However, the
real reason was because of the poor sales position and the
build-up of excessive stocks. The closure of the plant was
not caused by industrial action. No employee was suspended
for refusing a work instruction and all those laid-off
received unemployment benefit. They would not be entitled to
this benefit if they were engaged in industrial action.
3. The circumstances of the closure and lay-offs were
similar to those which prevailed during the Summer of 1988
and, accordingly, the same lay-off terms should apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The cheapest means of transporting the briquettes to
Newbridge was found to be the use of an outside haulier and in
view of the serious financial position of briquetting
operations, this method of transport was chosen. However,
when the haulier called to the factory to commence the
transfer operation the loader drivers refused to load his
lorry despite the fact that in April, 1988, 9,0000 tonnes had
been transported by haulier from Croghan to inside storage.
With no further storage space at Croghan, the need to transfer
briquettes to inside storage to maintain quality and the
refusal by loader drivers to co-operate in the cheapest method
possible of doing this, Management stopped briquette
production at the factory. As no production was taking place
it was necessary to lay-off all staff except those required to
maintain sales.
2. There are no agreed terms for lay-offs applying
throughout the Company. Over the past few years lay-offs have
been necessary on a number of occasions across the full range
of the Company's operations. Each occasion has been dealt
with separately through discussions with unions in advance of
lay-offs taking place. Arising from poor milled peat harvests
in 1985 and 1986, agreement was reached with unions in
September, 1986 on terms for lay-off over the winter period
1986/'87. Again in June, 1988, in advance of lay-offs,
discussions took place with the unions and terms covering
lay-offs were agreed.
4. 3. Management did not seek the lay-offs in Croghan in
November, 1988. It was in fact striving to maintain
employment despite difficult circumstances. The lay-offs
occurred when Management was unable to use the cheapest means
possible to avail of additional storage and thereby continue
production and maintain employment. In these circumstances no
discussions took place to agree lay-off terms and Management
is not prepared to apply lay-off terms to lay-offs which it
did not seek.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that the Company has the right to use the
most economic method of transport to do its business where no
redundancy or lay-off is involved as a result. In this case the
Court is of the view that the lay-offs could have been postponed
had the Union co-operated with the Company's proposals to transfer
the build-up of stock to alternative storage. It seems that
lay-offs would have taken place in any event at a later stage
because of the poor sales and that terms would likely have been
negotiated prior to the event. In the circumstances the Court
recommends that the staff superannuation contributions for half of
the period of these particular lay-offs should be paid by the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
29th June, 1989 ----------------
D.H./T. McC/U.S. Chairman