Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89915 Case Number: LCR12749 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MANOR PARK HOME BUILDERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a "finisher" concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and takes the view that having regard to the practice in the
industry generally and in particular to the circumstances
prevailing in the Company at the time the workers dismissal was
not unfair.
The Court further notes the undertaking given to the worker at the
time to re-employ him whenever suitable work became available and
the statement at the hearing that this offer still stands.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89915 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12749
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MANOR PARK HOME BUILDERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a "finisher" concerning his
alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company in September,
1988. In April, 1989, management decided that as work in progress
was running ahead of sales it would be necessary to cut back
output. On 14th April, 1989, the Company informed the worker
concerned and five other operatives that their employment was
being terminated. They each received one weeks pay in lieu of
notice. The worker concerned maintains that the Company promised
him that he would be re-employed as soon as work picked up. The
worker contends that despite this promise the Company subsequently
advertised for "finishers" however, the Company did not consider
him even though he answered the advertisements. The Union
believes that the Company acted in bad faith by not re-employing
the worker and that he should be compensated. As agreement was
not reached the matter was referred on 4th May, 1989, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 8th December, 1989,
(the earliest date suitable to the parties), and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 24th January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was employed by the Company for
approximately nine months. At no time during the period of
his employment did the Company make any complaint about either
his attendance at work or his performance. The Company have
in fact stated that they have the upmost respect for the
worker.
2. Since the worker was let go, the Company have placed
advertisements for "finishers" and a number of people have
been employed. The worker concerned was not re-employed
despite an undertaking given to the Union by the Company that
he would be re-employed when work picked up. The Union
believes that the Company acted in bad faith by not
re-employing the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had no choice but to terminate the worker's
employment in April, 1989. He received one week's pay in lieu
of notice. The Company did offer to re-employ him as soon as
work picked up. However, work on site did not pick up. The
Company would still consider re-employing the worker if work
does pick up.
2. The Union has referred to advertisements being placed
seeking "finishers". These advertisements were not placed by
the Company. They were placed by Trident Homes Limited who,
although an associate company, are for operating purposes a
separate and distinct firm of builders.
3. The Registered Agreement states that;
"In the case of dismissals, it is recognised that in the
circumstances of the construction industry it is the
prerogative of employers to take a decision in any
particular case. This, however, does not effect the right
of the trade unions to invoke the agreed dispute procedure
in any particular case."
In terminating the worker's employment the Company has at all
times acted within the terms of the Registered Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and takes the view that having regard to the practice in the
industry generally and in particular to the circumstances
prevailing in the Company at the time the workers dismissal was
not unfair.
The Court further notes the undertaking given to the worker at the
time to re-employ him whenever suitable work became available and
the statement at the hearing that this offer still stands.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
12th February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.