Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88715 Case Number: LCR12307 Section / Act: S67 Parties: H.B. ICE CREAM LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Earnings of temporary staff during a period of lay-off.
Recommendation:
5. It is not clear whether the union gave a guarantee that it
would not lodge the present claim if a concession was made to the
eleven named temporary workers. However, it is clear that the
Company only made its offer on the basis that the other temporary
workers would not be looking for similar treatment. In these
circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the claim
but as a gesture of goodwill the Company should make available
#2,500 for distribution amongst the claimants.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88715 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12307
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: H.B. ICE CREAM LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Earnings of temporary staff during a period of lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 300 permanent staff. It
also employs 180 temporary staff on a seasonal basis. On 30th
September, 1988, the Company closed its production plant at
Rathfarnham for the installation of new equipment. All production
workers were laid off for a period of eleven weeks. For the
lay-off period the workers received Social Welfare benefits. In
addition the Company paid an individual subsidy to each worker
which made up their net income based on hours worked in the same
period during 1987. Initially the Company indicated that the
subsidy would apply only in the case of permanent employees.
However, it subsequently agreed to extend the subsidy to eleven
senior temporary employees. The Unions later sought to have the
subsidy extended to all temporary employees who had worked (for
any length of time) in the previous year during the period
equivalent to the close down period. There are 49 such employees.
The Company was not prepared to concede this claim. The matter
was referred, on 2nd August, 1988, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 15th
September, 1988. No agreement being reached, the matter was
referred to a full Labour Court hearing. A hearing was scheduled
for October, 1988 but at the request of the parties, was
postponed. The hearing took place on 17th February, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company employs both permanent and seasonal workers.
All seasonal workers are classified as temporary. The Union
considers that by refusing to include shorter term temporary
workers in its arrangements for payments during lay-off, the
Company discriminated unfairly against them.
2. The period of time concerned is quite short and the cost
to the Company of conceding the claim would therefore be
minimal.
3. 3. These workers are available to the Company every year.
The closedown deprived them of income which they had expected
to receive.
4. The claim has the full support of permanent workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company considers that it has treated all its
employees fairly in relation to the period of lay-off.
2. There was never any real justification for extending the
ex gratia arrangement to temporary employees. The Company,
however, did agree to include the eleven named senior
temporary staff on the Union's assurance that these were the
only temporary staff involved.
3. The cost of conceding the Union's claim is difficult to
assess because of the variable nature of the subsidy.
However, the Company estimates that the cost would be
approximately #20,000.
4. Concession of the claim would have serious repercussive
effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is not clear whether the union gave a guarantee that it
would not lodge the present claim if a concession was made to the
eleven named temporary workers. However, it is clear that the
Company only made its offer on the basis that the other temporary
workers would not be looking for similar treatment. In these
circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the claim
but as a gesture of goodwill the Company should make available
#2,500 for distribution amongst the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
6th March, 1989 -------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman
CD88715 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12307
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: H.B. ICE CREAM LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Earnings of temporary staff during a period of lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 300 permanent staff. It
also employs 180 temporary staff on a seasonal basis. On 30th
September, 1988, the Company closed its production plant at
Rathfarnham for the installation of new equipment. All production
workers were laid off for a period of eleven weeks. For the
lay-off period the workers received Social Welfare benefits. In
addition the Company paid an individual subsidy to each worker
which made up their net income based on hours worked in the same
period during 1987. Initially the Company indicated that the
subsidy would apply only in the case of permanent employees.
However, it subsequently agreed to extend the subsidy to eleven
senior temporary employees. The Unions later sought to have the
subsidy extended to all temporary employees who had worked (for
any length of time) in the previous year during the period
equivalent to the close down period. There are 49 such employees.
The Company was not prepared to concede this claim. The matter
was referred, on 2nd August, 1988, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 15th
September, 1988. No agreement being reached, the matter was
referred to a full Labour Court hearing. A hearing was scheduled
for October, 1988 but at the request of the parties, was
postponed. The hearing took place on 17th February, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company employs both permanent and seasonal workers.
All seasonal workers are classified as temporary. The Union
considers that by refusing to include shorter term temporary
workers in its arrangements for payments during lay-off, the
Company discriminated unfairly against them.
2. The period of time concerned is quite short and the cost
to the Company of conceding the claim would therefore be
minimal.
3. 3. These workers are available to the Company every year.
The closedown deprived them of income which they had expected
to receive.
4. The claim has the full support of permanent workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company considers that it has treated all its
employees fairly in relation to the period of lay-off.
2. There was never any real justification for extending the
ex gratia arrangement to temporary employees. The Company,
however, did agree to include the eleven named senior
temporary staff on the Union's assurance that these were the
only temporary staff involved.
3. The cost of conceding the Union's claim is difficult to
assess because of the variable nature of the subsidy.
However, the Company estimates that the cost would be
approximately #20,000.
4. Concession of the claim would have serious repercussive
effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is not clear whether the union gave a guarantee that it
would not lodge the present claim if a concession was made to the
eleven named temporary workers. However, it is clear that the
Company only made its offer on the basis that the other temporary
workers would not be looking for similar treatment. In these
circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the claim
but as a gesture of goodwill the Company should make available
#2,500 for distribution amongst the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
6th March, 1989 -------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman