Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9061 Case Number: LCR12793 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for three casual workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
of the parties. Recognising that the arrangements then in
operation provided for the employment of casuals on the basis of
seniority, the Court considers that the Agreement of 1987 on the
future employment as casuals of 3 permanent employees who accepted
voluntary redundancy in June of that year should not have given
them priority over the three (3) claimants who were on the casuals
seniority list and who were entitled to be given casual employment
ahead of the three (3) former permanent employees. Accordingly
the Court recommends that the three (3) claimants should be paid
compensation in respect of the failure to grant employment to
them, the amount of such compensation to be the subject of
negotiations between the Company and the Union.
In the event the parties are unable to agree the level of payment
the Court shall endeavour to assist the parties and make a
recommendation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9061 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12793
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for three casual workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company supplements its permanent workforce from a list of
casual workers each season depending on the level of activity
required. The casual workers are listed on the basis of
seniority. The three workers concerned had been employed on a
casual basis since the early eighties. In 1987 the Company
carried out a rationalisation plan which involved, inter alia,
making three permanent employees redundant (Group A). In the
1988/89 season the three casual workers concerned were not called
on for employment by the Company. The workers in Group A were
re-employed in the 1988/89 season. The Union claims that during
the negotiations on rationalisation it was agreed that priority
for seasonal work would be given to those on the casual list
before being offered to workers who had been made redundant.
Therefore the three workers concerned should have been given
priority over Group A. The Union made a claim for compensation
for the three workers concerned which was rejected by the Company.
No agreement was reached at local level and the Company declined a
referral of the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The hearing
took place on 26th February, 1990. Prior to the hearing the Union
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in breach of the agreement made with the
Unions during the negotiations on rationalisation. At that
time the Company agreed that casuals on the seniority list
would be employed before work would be offered to those who
took redundancy. As the workers in Group A were offered work
which should have been offered to the three workers concerned
the Union is claiming compensation.
2. The Company has an obligation to the casual workforce.
The Company has always employed casuals and has negotiated
with the Unions on their conditions from time to time. The
casual workers follow the job on the basis of seniority and
this has been the position in the coal business down through
the years. The Company's claim that it has no responsibility
to the three workers concerned is unacceptable.
3. The treatment of the three workers concerned and the
Company's attitude towards them are unacceptable. They should
be compensated as a result of the Company's failure to adhere
to the agreement made concerning the employment of casual
workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is prepared to continue to employ the three
workers concerned on the basis on which they were originally
employed. At no time did the Company guarantee that the
casual work would be permanent or regular or of any nature
other than as the work required.
2. As part of a rationalisation plan in 1987 the Company made
three workers (Group A) redundant. The workers in Group A had
particularly long service and consequently the Group of Unions
requested and the Company granted an opportunity for them to
be employed as seasonal workers. Opportunities for the
employment of Group A workers subsequent to 1987 arose from
time to time depending on the level of business.
3. The coal trade is undergoing a traumatic contraction in
business and it is likely that there will be further
reductions in the numbers employed by the Company. Due to a
reduced level of business in the 1988/89 season the Company
did not employ the three workers concerned but would have
employed them if there had been work available. The Company
believes that it has fully discharged its obligations in
respect of the three workers concerned and rejects the Union's
claim for compensation.
4. The Company used its good offices to arrange suitable work
for the workers concerned with a contractor on the site but
this was not availed of in the 1988/89 season.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
of the parties. Recognising that the arrangements then in
operation provided for the employment of casuals on the basis of
seniority, the Court considers that the Agreement of 1987 on the
future employment as casuals of 3 permanent employees who accepted
voluntary redundancy in June of that year should not have given
them priority over the three (3) claimants who were on the casuals
seniority list and who were entitled to be given casual employment
ahead of the three (3) former permanent employees. Accordingly
the Court recommends that the three (3) claimants should be paid
compensation in respect of the failure to grant employment to
them, the amount of such compensation to be the subject of
negotiations between the Company and the Union.
In the event the parties are unable to agree the level of payment
the Court shall endeavour to assist the parties and make a
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___23rd___April,___1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman