Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89912 Case Number: LCR12758 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning call back rights for temporary staff.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
does not find any merit in the Union's claim and accordingly does
not recommend its concession.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89912 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12758
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH PLC
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning call back rights for temporary staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Up to 1986 the Company employed almost 400 permanent staff
plus a pool of temporary staff who were called on in accordance
with their seniority in the pool. A major rationalisation in 1986
resulted in a reduction of permanent production staff to the
present level of 30 and the virtual elimination of the temporary
pool. With the exception of five, all members of the temporary
pool accepted redundancy and were paid off on an agreed formula.
The five who remained were not interested in redundancy and were
retained on the same terms as before. These five are now the
first to be called on for temporary employment. However, from
time to time the Company needs additional temporary staff and
usually uses staff who were permanent, pre-1986. The Union is
claiming that people in this situation should be put on a
seniority list determined by the date of their first employment
since the rationalisation and that future temporary contracts
should be offered based on this seniority list. The Company has
rejected this proposal. Following the failure of local level
discussions the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 23rd October, 1989. A conciliation
conference on the 30th November failed to resolve the dispute and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on the 11th December. A Court hearing was held on
the 24th January, 1990 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The staff presently in dispute with the Company would have
been full-time employees pre-1986 and once called back by the
Company to work on a temporary basis, should, following the
ending of the temporary period, be given first consideration
for any future temporary work that might arise.
2. The present situation is that even following several
call-backs, the Company still insists that it is not obliged
to give any consideration to this fact and may call any person
it wishes to act in a temporary capacity.
3. The Union is not insisting that staff who were made
redundant have any claim on the Company should it wish to
recruit new employees on a temporary basis or otherwise.
However, those who were contacted by the Company and who took
up temporary work on several occasions should have rights of
re-call before people who were not previously contracted when
any future temporary work arises.
4. Such a call-back system applies in other companies such as
Tayto, Irish Biscuits and Cadbury Ireland. These companies
have lists of temporary staff who are called back in order of
seniority. This is a normal system and one which works well.
Such a system would be fair and reasonable and would not give
rise to any problems. It would also be advantageous to the
Company to have a small core of skilled workers whom it could
call upon should the need arise.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the negotiations on the reorganisation in 1986, it
was accepted by the Union and Management that there would be a
special need from time to time in the future for temporary
employees. There were 70 temporary employees on the register
in 1986 (many were not directly employed when the redundancies
took place) and the severance package available to them all
was the same as for the permanent workforce. There were five
temporary employees who took the decision at that time to
forfeit the lump sum and to remain with the Company - they
were then classified as permanent for seniority purposes. The
remaining 65 opted to take the cash severance terms and
terminate their employment. They could have remained on the
register but they took the decision to opt for redundancy and
leave.
2. Management stated during its negotiations with the various
unions in 1986 that when temporary employees opted to leave it
would engage temporaries for the future on the basis of those
who could do the various jobs and thereby meet the needs of
the business for the future. Since 1986 it has taken back a
small number of temporary employees who were employed pre 1986
on the basis that they have the skills required to do the
various jobs. It continues to engage temporary people on the
basis of selecting those who are able to meet the needs of the
jobs that have to be done.
3. Where an opportunity exists for temporary employment
resulting from marketing demands it is necessary to bring
people back who have had previous experience in the work they
have been brought back to do.
4. The Company is prepared to operate a call-back system on
the basis of seniority provided people are able to perform
satisfactorily in the jobs to be done.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
does not find any merit in the Union's claim and accordingly does
not recommend its concession.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
16th February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.