Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89408 Case Number: LCR12582 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (O.P.W.) - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of approximately 150 workers employed on the Monaghan Blackwater and the Boyle and Bonnet Drainage construction schemes for compensation for loss of earnings arising from lay-offs.
Recommendation:
The Court hs very carefully considered the submissions made
by the parties on the question of the validity or otherwise of
lay offs within the terms of the Programme for National Recovery,
and in particular the agreed statement of 28th July, 1988. In
the light of this it seems clear that no general declaration of
principle with regard to the issue can be usefully made but
rather that each proposed lay off must be examined on its merits
and dealt with accordingly, due regard being given to the reasons
which might make such lay off necessary.
In respect of the specific occasions from which the case arises,
insofar as the Court has already given as its opinion that the
lay off concerned were probably contrary to the terms of the
P.N.R. the Court recommend that payment for the periods claimed
be conceded by the O.P.W.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89408 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12582
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS (O.P.W.)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 150 workers employed on the
Monaghan Blackwater and the Boyle and Bonnet Drainage
construction schemes for compensation for loss of earnings
arising from lay-offs.
BACKGROUND:
2. Early in 1988 the O.P.W. proposed to put drainage staff on
short-time working. The matter was the subject of a Labour Court
hearing on the 11th April, 1988. The Court in recommendation No.
L.C.R. 11792 recommended that:-
"Pending the completion of the review and consultation
provided for in Section 11, paragraph 11 of the Plan for
National Recovery, which according to the Union is
imminent, the Court recommends that the lay-offs should
not take place."
3. Following the Labour Court hearing further discussions took
place between the Department of the Taoiseach and I.C.T.U. which
resulted in the following agreed statement which was issued on
the 28th July, 1988.:-
"1. The Commissioners for Public Works have stated that
there is a financial need to introduce short-time working
for workers on O.P.W. drainage, construction and
maintenance schemes. At present projections this will
operate at a level of six weeks, three weeks and one week
for different groups between now and the end of the year
to produce the required saving.
2. The Union side, while not agreeing that short time
working should be introduced, recognise that, if an
alternative solution is not found, short-time working will
be implemented by the Commissioners for Public Works to
achieve the required saving.
3. The Union side have requested and the Commissioners for
Public Works are prepared to agree to defer short-time
working until 1st October but any short-time working
necessary will have to take place between then and end
-1988. Alternative solutions will be explored between now
and end September and the position will be reviewed before
end September."
4. In October, 1988 the O.P.W. advised the Unions that it had no
option but to introduce short-time working and to place 180
construction workers on lay-off for weeks commencing the 17th
October, 1988, 21st November, 1988 and 2nd December, 1988. The
271 maintenance workers employed on various drainage schemes
throughout the country would also be liable for lay-off for
periods of one to three weeks. The lay off of the construction
workers commenced on the 17th October, 1988.
5. A further Labour Court hearing was held and in Labour Court
.Recommendation No. L.C.R. 12072 the Court recommended as
follows:-
"Having regard to the general context of the agreement on
the Programme for National Recovery, it appears to the
Court that the lay-offs are probably in breach of that
agreement. The Court therefore recommends that, pending
the outcome of the meeting of the central review Committee
on Wednesday 26th October, which should reach a definitive
view on the matter, the workers who have been laid off
should be re-employed immediately."
6. Following the issue of the Recommendation the O.P.W. decided
to re-engage the workers with effect from Monday the 24th
October, 1988. The Union submitted a claim for compensation for
loss of earnings on behalf of those workers laid off for the
week. The O.P.W. rejected the claim. The issue was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 3rd April,
1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 16th May, 1989.
As no agreement was reached both parties consented to a referral
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on the 3rd August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Unions have consistently argued that lay-offs were
not provided for in the P.N.R. nor were they to be used as
a means of overcoming shortfalls in financial allocations
from the Department of Finance. An essential element of
the Programme for National Recovery is the commitment of
Government to achieve staff reductions on a voluntary
basis.
2. The workers concerned reported for duty each day
during the period they were on lay-off and were at all
times available for work.
3. The Union urges the Court to acknowledge the justice
of the claim before it and to again confirm its opposition
to selective lay-offs of Public Service workers in the non
officer grades. It is particularly unfair to single out
the "servant" grades or general operatives and State
industrial workers who do not enjoy full civil service
status for selection for lay-offs.
4. The workers claim is for equality of treatment under
the P.N.R. They resent attempts to have two types of
workers i.e. those with full security of employment to
whom the full terms of the agreement apply and those in
the lower paid and more insecure jobs who are not only
subject to voluntary retirement but also compulsory loss
of earnings because of lay-offs.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. In the agreed statement between Government officials
and Congress representatives of the 28th of July, 1988 the
Union side "while not agreeing that short-time working
should be introduced," nevertheless recognised that "if an
alternative solution is not found, short-time working will
be implemented by the Commissioners of Public Works to
achieve the required saving." These two parties to the
P.N.R. agreed that short-time working could be used if no
other option could be found. By this definition,
short-time working was held not to be in breach of the
P.N.R.
2. The Court in the most recent hearing of the issue
(L.C.R. 12072) recommended that the introduction of
short-time working is "probably" in breach of the P.N.R.
Then the Court went on to add that the workers who had
been laid off should be returned to work. The Office of
Public Works responded by deferring short-time working and
returned the employees involved to work the following
Monday morning. It is very important to stress that this
action should not be construed as either a rejection or
acceptance of the Labour Court Recommendation. Rather, it
should be seen in the light of an endeavour on
Management's part to comply with the Court's
recommendation, while not conceding the very important
principle of short-time working.
3. It is imperative for the Office of Public Works to
retain the option of short-time working, which at any
stage in the future could become necessary. Indeed, only
for the fact that additional savings were unexpectedly
made in 1988 (details supplied to the Court), there would
have been no option but to resort to short-time working
and lay drainage workers off for the last few weeks of
1988. Fortunately this was not necessary in 1988 due to
those other rather exceptional savings. The position for
1989 is that as matters stand and with the reduced size of
the work force, it should be possible to avoid short-time
working again. However, there is no guarantee of what
lies ahead in 1990, or subsequent years.
4. In relation to the specific point of compensating
employees for the week lost, the Court in L.C.R. 12072,
did not state that short-time working could not be
countenanced and indeed that meaning was not taken from
it. To do so would have placed the Office in an
impossible situation. The subsequent action was merely to
defer short-time working, having regard to the Court's
recommendation in the interests of maintaining good
industrial relations. The office therefore cannot see its
way to agreeing to any payment of compensation to the
employees affected by the one week's lay-off.
5. From a financial viewpoint there are no funds from
which to pay such compensation. The office is reluctant
to commit any additional unprovided for expenditure such
as this, lest it bring about a shortfall of funds in 1989
and merely serve to return it to the situation of having
to revert to short-time working later in the year. It
should also be added that the employees involved will
already have been in receipt of Social Welfare benefits
for the week of the lay-off.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court hs very carefully considered the submissions made
by the parties on the question of the validity or otherwise of
lay offs within the terms of the Programme for National Recovery,
and in particular the agreed statement of 28th July, 1988. In
the light of this it seems clear that no general declaration of
principle with regard to the issue can be usefully made but
rather that each proposed lay off must be examined on its merits
and dealt with accordingly, due regard being given to the reasons
which might make such lay off necessary.
In respect of the specific occasions from which the case arises,
insofar as the Court has already given as its opinion that the
lay off concerned were probably contrary to the terms of the
P.N.R. the Court recommend that payment for the periods claimed
be conceded by the O.P.W.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
29th September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.