Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90215 Case Number: LCR12920 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ORMOND PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED - and - NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning holiday arrangements.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recognises the circumstances which required the
Company to act at short notice. It is the view of the Court,
however, given the agreements in relation to the arrangements for
leave, that it was unfortunate that these could not have been
adhered to in full. It is the view of the Court, notwithstanding
the above, that, given the measure of agreement to the altered
holiday arrangement by the majority of the unions involved, the
week commencing 5th February should be considered to have been a
week of leave; those who worked at the request of the Company
should be paid in the normal way.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90215 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12920
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ORMOND PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION)
and
NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning holiday arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns nineteen workers who are employed in the
litho-printing department. Towards the end of 1989 and early 1990
the Company experienced a downturn in business. In a letter to
the unions dated 30th January, 1990 Management sought agreement
that a week's holiday be taken by the workforce from Monday 5th
February to Monday 12th February. The other unions in the Company
accepted the proposal to take leave. The Union concerned in this
claim balloted its members who rejected the proposal. The Union
advised Management that the workers concerned would report for
work on Monday 5th February, 1990. They did so and were admitted
to the premises on Monday and Tuesday 5th, and 6th February. In
the meantime the Company received an urgent order and requested
the co-operation of the Union to complete the work. This was
received and eight employees worked Wednesday and Thursday 7th and
8th February; two employees also worked on Friday 9th February to
service the order. The rest of the workers concerned did not
attend Wednesday to Friday. All received one week's wages. The
Union is claiming one week's holiday for the workers concerned
stating that its members were available for work on the week in
question. The Company rejected the claim. The issue was not
resolved in local level discussions and was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 5th February,
1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 24th April, 1990
but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 1st May, 1990. A Court hearing was held on
the 6th June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's action in giving four days notice of
holidays is in breach of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973
and also the Registered Employment Agreement negotiated
between the Irish Printing Federation and the Dublin Printing
Trades Group of Unions.
2. The workers concerned refused to take holiday cheques and
reported for work on Monday 5th February, 1990. They worked
on maintenance of the machinery and general duties awaiting
orders to be printed. The Company insisted there were no jobs
to be printed.
3. The Company admitted that they had not given sufficient
notice in accordance with the Act and the Registered
Agreement. They requested that the workers concerned accept
their pay cheques for the week pending further discussions.
The Union agreed to this proposal.
4. When the Company requested the Union's co-operation to
report for work on Wednesday to deal with an urgent order full
co-operation was received and some employees worked on
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
5. The Union has been very reasonable and has acted in a very
accommodating fashion with the Company. The question of
granting holidays to the workers concerned has no knock-on
effect with other unions as they have taken their holidays by
agreement.
6. The Union is seeking a week's holiday on behalf of the
workers concerned under the provisions of the Holidays
(Employees) Act, 1973 and the Registered Agreement. The date
at which this holiday will be taken can be agreed mutually
between the Company and the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. The Company fully explained the seriousness of its
position to all unions outlining the fact that there was no
work, no prospect of work and that Management had not taken
any action at an earlier stage in the hope that its efforts to
secure new work would succeed. The vast majority of the
workforce accepted this position and agreed to the Company's
proposal to take one week's leave.
2. The Union's position subsequently argued on the basis of
its independence from other unions was not very helpful given
the Company's situation. The Union's response to the
Company's proposal changed on two occasions. The Company
could not contemplate paying the workers concerned for
attendance at work when the Company was in effect closed. To
do so would automatically entitle other union members to seek
compensation.
3. The Company admits that this particular situation was most
unusual and that existing agreements were not adhered to.
However it is not Management's intention to alter in any way
the normal procedures for agreement on annual leave. In this
particular instance a stark choice was facing the Company and
its workforce and Management responded to the situation as did
most of the workers in a reasonable and responsible manner.
4. It should be noted that subsequent to the week's holiday
taken in February, short-time working had to be introduced for
a period of time due to continuing difficulties in the market
place.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recognises the circumstances which required the
Company to act at short notice. It is the view of the Court,
however, given the agreements in relation to the arrangements for
leave, that it was unfortunate that these could not have been
adhered to in full. It is the view of the Court, notwithstanding
the above, that, given the measure of agreement to the altered
holiday arrangement by the majority of the unions involved, the
week commencing 5th February should be considered to have been a
week of leave; those who worked at the request of the Company
should be paid in the normal way.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
20th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.