Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89316 Case Number: LCR12475 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CARLOW URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning a claim for loss of earnings due to short-time working in April, 1988.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the view expressed by the Court in LCR11774
and the sequence of events following the urgent issue of that
recommendation, the Court now recommends that each individual who
was placed on short-time working from the 5th to the 25th April,
1988, should be paid for the net loss incurred by him during that
period.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89316 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12475
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CARLOW URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for loss of earnings due to
short-time working in April, 1988.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1988, the UDC informed the Union that because of
its financial situation it would be necessary to introduce
short-time working (a three day week) from 5th April, 1988. The
Union objected to this and following the failure of both local
discussions and a conciliation conference, the dispute was the
subject of an urgent Labour Court hearing on the 31st March, 1988.
LCR11774 (issued on the same day) found in favour of the Union.
The Council claims that it entered into immediate discussions with
a view to implementing the recommendation but that these took
three weeks to complete. In the meantime, short-time working went
ahead on the 5th April. Following a ballot of its members and
sanction from its General Executive Committee, the Union served
strike notice to expire on the 25th April. At a meeting on the
22nd April the Union was informed that the short-time working was
being terminated and that the workers concerned would be returning
to full-time duties on the 25th April. As a result of this strike
notice was withdrawn. The Union subsequently lodged a claim for
compensation for loss of earnings for the period of short-time
working (the estimated loss was #100 gross per worker). The
Council rejected the claim. As no agreement could be reached at
local level, the dispute was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 6th September, 1988. No agreement
could be reached at a conciliation conference on the 27th October
and on the 25th May, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held in Kilkenny on the 27th June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite having a Labour Court recommendation which
upheld the Union's position, the Council still went ahead and
introduced short-time working. However, the Union adhered
strictly to industrial relations practice when faced with a
breach of the recommendation by the Council. It gave adequate
time to Management to call-off the short-time working and was
willing to wait a full three weeks before placing official
pickets.
3. 2. Short-time working was in contravention of LCR11774.
This Recommendation outlined the reasons why short-time
working should not take place, including:-
- the provisions of the Programme for National
Recovery (PNR),
- Department of the Environment Circular letter
LA(P) 29/87,
- the Code of Practice on Security of
Employment, 1985.
3. The Court is respectfully requested to find in favour of
the Union's claim and to recommend that the claimants be
compensated for the loss of earnings arising out of the
introduction of short-time working.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Immediately after LCR11774 was issued the Council
entered into discussions with a view to implementing the
recommendation, having regard to the Council's financial
circumstances. As a result of these discussions which took
place over a three week period, the claimants resumed
full-time working from 25th April, 1988.
2. The Council submits that it has at all times acted in a
reasonable manner and that a period of three weeks from the
date of the Labour Court hearing to the date of implementing
the recommendation is not an unreasonable length of time.
3. Any loss of earnings which may have been occasioned by
the introduction of a three day week would be offset by social
welfare benefits and reduced contributions to PAYE AND PRSI.
4. Concession of this claim would have implications
throughout the public sector where because of the difficult
economic situation, short-time working has been implemented in
many areas over the last number of years. Furthermore, the
Council has no legal, statutory or other authority to pay
employees in respect of a period when they were not at work.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the view expressed by the Court in LCR11774
and the sequence of events following the urgent issue of that
recommendation, the Court now recommends that each individual who
was placed on short-time working from the 5th to the 25th April,
1988, should be paid for the net loss incurred by him during that
period.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__19th__July,__1989. ___________________
D.H./U.S. Chairman